Mint a free API key for this server's HTTP API (500 calls/day, no signup). Optional email for usage stats. Pass the key as ?key= on any HTTP endpoint.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get_api_key"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| No | Optional contact email |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With zero annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the quota (500 calls/day), that no signup/auth is required, and how the key is consumed. It omits whether repeated calls mint new keys or return the same one, and whether keys expire — the main residual gaps for a credential-minting tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is produced and its limits, then the optional parameter, then the usage instruction. Every sentence adds information; nothing is redundant with the title or schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-required-param, single-field tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, quota, optional input, and key usage. The only shortfall is not saying where the key appears in the response or how re-invocation behaves, which matters slightly for an idempotency-sensitive credential tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is optional, so the baseline is already satisfied. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema's 'Optional contact email' by stating the email is used for usage stats, which informs whether an agent should supply it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Mint') and resource ('a free API key for this server's HTTP API'), plus scope details (500 calls/day, no signup). This is clearly distinguishable from the utility siblings (b64, case, hash, slug, ts, uuid), none of which produce credentials.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explains the follow-up step — 'Pass the key as ?key= on any HTTP endpoint' — and that email is optional for usage stats, so an agent knows how to act after the call. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are needed since no sibling does anything similar, but there is no stated when-not or repeat-call guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.