List all cPanel API tokens for the account to review and manage authentication credentials.
List all cPanel API tokens for the account
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": "list_api_tokens"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists 'all' API tokens, which adds scope, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any other behavioral details. For a list operation, more context about what fields are returned would be expected.
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 single sentence is perfectly concise, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every word contributes meaning. No waste or verbosity.
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-parameter list tool without an output schema or annotations, the description is minimally sufficient. It states the action and scope. However, it could mention what token information is returned (e.g., IDs, names, dates) to be fully complete, but the simplicity of the tool keeps this from being a major gap.
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 is trivially complete. The description correctly implies no filtering or options are needed, aligning with the schema. Baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all cPanel API tokens for the account'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_api_token, rename_api_token, and revoke_api_token. No ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
The description implies usage context (when you need to see existing API tokens) and is distinct from token creation/renaming/revocation siblings. However, it lacks explicit 'when to use vs. alternatives' or exclusions, but given no competing list tool exists, the guidance is adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.