Jentic Remote MCP Server

List credentials

list_credentials

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use this tool to list all API credentials the authenticated agent has access to. Use this if a user asks "What APIs can I use?", "What credentials do I have access to?", "What apps are available to me?", "What APIs are available to me?" This is useful for debugging or to understand what API credentials are available to the agent.

DEPRECATION NOTICE: This tool is being deprecated on 20 September 2026. Execution is moving to self-hosted Jentic One. It still works for now but will stop working on that date. See https://jentic.com/jentic-one, or fetch the 'skill://onboard-jentic-one' MCP resource for a step-by-step install and onboarding guide.

Returns: dict: Response with success status and list of credentials { "result": { "success": True, "credentials": [c.model_dump(exclude_none=False) for c in credentials], } } On error: { "result": { "success": False, "message": "Failed to load credentials", } }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds valuable context: a deprecation notice, the scoping to credentials the agent has access to, and the return/error format. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the main purpose, includes example triggers, and provides a surprising amount of necessary deprecation context. It is slightly longer than minimal but each section earns its place; well-structured using a bulleted example list.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a parameterless read-only tool, the description is complete: it covers purpose, appropriate usage, return format for both success and error, and deprecation. The annotations and output schema handle safety and response shape, leaving the description to add the remaining details.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100%. There is no parameter information to convey, but the description specifies the return structure (success boolean and credentials array), which provides clarity even without parameters.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'list all API credentials the authenticated agent has access to.' It is specific (verb 'list', resource 'credentials') and distinguishes from siblings by focusing on credentials rather than API lookup or execution.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear when-to-use scenarios with example user queries ('What APIs can I use?' etc.) and states it is useful for debugging. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tool references, but the examples and context are sufficient for a zero-parameter list tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Jentic Remote MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The four tools have distinct purposes: search_apis discovers operations, load_execution_info fetches operation contracts, execute runs them, and list_credentials handles authentication info. There is mild overlap between search_apis and list_credentials (both reveal available APIs), but they serve different needs—discovery vs. credential access—so the boundaries are mostly clear.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lowercase_with_underscores convention. Three use verb_noun patterns (list_credentials, load_execution_info, search_apis) and one is a simple verb (execute), but the style is uniform and predictable. No mixing of conventions or vague names.

Tool Count4/5

With 4 tools, the server is tightly scoped to the API execution workflow (search, inspect, execute, credentials). This is a reasonable count for the domain—not too thin to feel incomplete, and each tool earns its place without redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The core lifecycle is covered: search_apis discovers operations, load_execution_info provides full contracts, execute runs them, and list_credentials covers authentication. There are no major gaps for the stated purpose of remote API execution, though a tool to manage or create credentials might be a minor addition.

Resources

Need Help?