list_ssh_keysLists SSH key pairs registered in your account so you can identify key names to pass in create_vm's keypairs argument.
List the SSH key pairs registered in your account. Key names are used by create_vm's keypairs argument.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, 1-indexed. Defaults to 1. | |
| pageSize | No | Items per page (max 500). Defaults to 50; pass page to fetch more. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds cross-tool context (key names feed create_vm's keypairs) but says nothing about whether private key material is returned, which matters for a credentials-listing tool.
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 short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the downstream-use note second. Every sentence earns its place.
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 read-only paginated list tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete. The one omission is whether key material (public vs. private) is exposed in the response, which is the main remaining unknown an agent would care about.
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 description coverage is 100% and both pagination parameters (page, pageSize with defaults and max 500) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource ('List the SSH key pairs registered in your account'), with scope ('in your account') made explicit. No sibling tool covers SSH keys, so an agent can route to it unambiguously from the name plus this sentence.
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?
Provides real usage context by tying the result to create_vm's keypairs argument, which tells the agent this is a lookup step before provisioning. It stops short of stating exclusions or when not to call it, but there is no plausible competing tool to exclude.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.