create_api_keyGet a free key instantly for roomier limits and webhooks. Shown once. Not needed for reading or for a few writes a day.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Who or what will use the key. | |
| agent | No | Your name as an assistant, e.g. 'claude'. | |
| No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description reveals the key is shown once and is free, adding context beyond the annotations; there is no contradiction with readOnlyHint false.
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 terse sentences deliver the purpose and key caveats without unnecessary words.
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?
Provides enough context to call the tool, including the one-time display caveat, though no output schema or error/usage limits are specified.
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 covers 2 of 3 parameters with meaningful descriptions, but the description adds no parameter guidance and the email parameter lacks a description.
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?
Title and description clearly state the tool creates/gets a free API key, distinct from sibling tools focused on matches, clubs, and schedules.
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?
Explicitly says a key is unnecessary for read-only or light write usage and is intended for higher limits and webhooks, though it does not name alternative tools.
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.
Each tool targets a clearly distinct resource or action: about/API key, match creation, club searching, match searching, schedule generation, group retrieval, match retrieval, and joining. Even similar tools like find_matches and get_match are separated by clear inputs and purposes.
Nearly all tools follow the verb_noun pattern: create_match, find_clubs, find_matches, generate_schedule, get_group, get_match, join_match, create_api_key. The only deviation is about_kicksmash, which uses a preposition-style prefix instead of a verb.
Nine tools is well-scoped for a padel-focused assistant. Each tool serves a distinct user need without redundancy or bloat.
The core workflows—discovering clubs/matches, creating matches, joining matches, retrieving match/group info, and generating schedules—are well covered. Update/cancel/leave operations are absent, but the organizer manageUrl suggests those happen outside the MCP surface, so this is a minor gap rather than a dead end.