Skip to main content
Glama

maginary-mcp

by io.github.maginaryai
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Manage API key

manage_api_key
Destructive

Create, list, or revoke Maginary API keys (up to 10 per account).

Auth: pass ``email`` + ``password`` for Basic auth (onboarding), or omit
both to use the configured API key (normal operation).

Args:
    action: One of ``create``, ``list``, ``revoke``.
    name: Key name (required for ``create``).
    key_prefix: 8-char prefix of the key to revoke (required for ``revoke``).
    email: Account email (for Basic auth).
    password: Account password (for Basic auth).

Returns:
    For ``create``: dict with ``raw_key`` (the full key — show once, then
    use ``configure_api_key`` to activate it), ``key_prefix``, ``name``.
    For ``list``: dict with ``keys`` array.
    For ``revoke``: success/error message.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoKey name (required for create).
emailNoAccount email (for Basic auth).
actionYesOne of: create, list, revoke.
passwordNoAccount password (for Basic auth).
key_prefixNo8-char prefix of key to revoke (required for revoke).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true) by disclosing the 10-key limit, the one-time display of raw_key, the requirement to use configure_api_key for activation, and the auth-mode switching behavior. This gives the agent concrete operational expectations without contradicting the structured metadata.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-organized with clear sections for overview, auth, args, and returns. Each sentence contributes useful information, and the action-specific return behavior is structured for quick parsing. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 multi-action tool with 5 parameters and no enums, the description covers all necessary operational details: what each action does, required vs. optional parameters, auth modes, account limit, and the expected return payloads. It also references the related activation tool, making the workflow complete for an agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema: it clarifies that key_prefix must be 8 characters, that name is required for create, that key_prefix is required for revoke, and it explains the return format for each action. This is more than the schema alone provides.

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 states a specific verb (create/list/revoke) with a specific resource (Maginary API keys) and a key constraint (up to 10 per account). It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling configure_api_key by mentioning that activation is a separate step, so an agent can select this tool appropriately.

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?

It provides explicit auth guidance (email+password for onboarding vs. configured API key for normal operation) and notes that after creating a key, configure_api_key should be used to activate it. It does not explicitly enumerate all alternatives or when not to use the tool, but the action field and sibling references make the intended usage clear.

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

All maginary-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources