Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Nanites

Nanites

by ADn-001
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Provider Keys

nanites_listProviderKeys

Lists all API keys for the specified cloud provider, enabling quick review of credentials across cloudflare, openrouter, omniroute, or generic configurations.

Instructions

List all API keys for a cloud provider.

Tool call template

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": {
      "provider": "<provider>"
    },
    "name": "nanites_listProviderKeys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation and the 'all' quantifier adds scope, but it does not disclose output shape, redaction of secrets, or error behavior. This is acceptable for a simple list but not rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, no filler, front-loaded verb and resource. Every word contributes to the meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple and the description covers its core purpose, but without an output schema or annotations it does not state what a successful response looks like (e.g., full keys vs metadata, pagination). An agent could call it correctly but might be surprised by the return shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It ties the lone parameter to the cloud provider ('for a cloud provider'), but does not explain the enum values or requiredness, which are left to the schema. This is minimal but sufficient for one simple parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses the verb 'List' and the resource 'API keys', making the operation unambiguous. The 'all' and 'for a cloud provider' scope clearly distinguishes it from sibling key-management tools such as nanites_addProviderKey and nanites_removeProviderKey.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are mentioned. The verb 'List' implies a retrieval scenario, but the description does not say to prefer this over other list tools or explain when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools