rotate_keyRevoke your current API key and get a new one (shown ONCE — save it). Use this the moment you suspect your key leaked anywhere. The old key stops working immediately.
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": "rotate_key"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it warns the new key is shown ONCE, instructs the agent to save it, and states the old key stops working immediately. It omits whether active sessions or other tokens are also invalidated and whether authentication is required, which are the remaining behavioral gaps.
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 the action, then the irreversibility warning, then the trigger condition. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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-param tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential facts: what happens to the old key, what the agent receives, and the urgency model. Only secondary details (session invalidation, rate limits) are absent.
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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-related confusion is possible.
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+resource pair ('revoke your current API key and get a new one') with the exact scope of the operation. No sibling tool does credential rotation, so an agent can select this on the description alone.
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?
Gives a clear trigger condition — 'Use this the moment you suspect your key leaked anywhere' — which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs. It stops short of stating when NOT to use it (e.g., routine rotation cadence), but the context is unambiguous.
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.