Get (or create) the public site API key for your reserved subdomain. Embed this key in your static site and call https://api.demo.st/v1 with Authorization: Bearer . Tenant is scoped by the key — never share another site's key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool may create the key ('Get (or create)'), and that the tenant is scoped by the key, adding security context. It does not mention side effects like invalidation of previous keys, but for a simple tool, this is adequate.
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?
The description is only two sentences and is tightly packed with purpose, usage, and security warnings. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.
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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, how to use the result, and scoping. It implies the return value (the key) and mentions the prerequisite of a reserved subdomain, making it sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the input schema contributes nothing. The description compensates by explaining the key's purpose, the API endpoint, and authentication method. This exceeds the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Get (or create) the public site API key for your reserved subdomain.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like rotate_site_api_key, and the context of 'public site API key' adds specificity.
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?
It provides direct usage guidance: 'Embed this key in your static site and call https://api.demo.st/v1 with Authorization: Bearer <key>.' It also warns about sharing keys, which helps the agent understand when to use this tool. It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the context makes it clear this is for obtaining a key, not rotating one.
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 distinct resource and action: subdomain availability, site content, collections, records, and API keys. There is no meaningful overlap between tools like upload_site and create_collection, or delete_record and upsert_record. Even similar operations (reserve vs. release, create vs. delete) are clearly scoped.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using lowercase with underscores, such as check_subdomain_availability, clear_site, and rotate_site_api_key. Verb forms are uniform and predictable, making it easy to guess related operations. No mixed conventions or vague names.
With 13 tools, the surface is well-scoped for a demo platform covering subdomain management, site deployment, document storage, and API key handling. Each tool has a clear purpose, and the count is within the ideal 3-15 range. No redundancy or bloat.
The tool set covers nearly all essential workflows: subdomain lifecycle (reserve, check, release), site deployment (upload, clear), collection/record CRUD (create, delete, list, upsert), and API key management (get, rotate). Minor gaps exist, such as no update_collection or get_site details, but these are not critical for core usage. Overall, the surface is functionally complete for the stated purpose.
