Create a new API key. The full key is returned once; tell the user to store it safely.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"name": "<name>"
},
"name": "create_key"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | A label, e.g. 'production' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only state readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false. The description adds the operationally critical fact that the full key is returned a single time and must be stored immediately — a non-obvious, high-consequence behavior. It stops short of stating whether the new key is active by default or what permissions/scope it carries.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive consequence (one-time visibility) front-loaded right after the purpose. Nothing is padded or repeated from the title.
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 one-parameter creation tool with a complete schema and safety annotations, the description covers the essential risk (losing the key). It omits key scope/permission behavior and rate limiting, which are minor gaps rather than blockers for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the single 'name' parameter is already fully documented including an example label. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, but nothing is gained either.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Create a new API key') that is unmistakable and clearly distinct from siblings such as list_keys and revoke_key. An agent can select it without opening the schema.
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?
Usage is implied by the operation itself (provisioning a credential), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as account/permission level, and no note about checking existing keys via list_keys before creating a duplicate.
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.