porkbun-mcp-server

request_api_key

Generate an API key authorization request that returns a request token and auth URL for account holder approval.

Instructions

Initiate an API key authorization request. Returns a requestToken and authUrl for the account holder to approve. name is an optional human-readable label for the application.

Tool call template

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": "request_api_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose all behavioral traits. It mentions initiation and return values but omits authentication requirements, rate limits, what happens after approval, and any side effects. For a security-related tool, this is insufficient.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with action and return values, no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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?

With only one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic flow. However, missing details like required permissions, error cases, and next steps after approval make it only partially complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so description must add meaning. It explains 'name' as 'an optional human-readable label for the application,' which clarifies the parameter beyond the schema type alone.

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 clearly states the action ('initiate an API key authorization request') and the resource ('API key'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'retrieve_api_key' which likely retrieves existing keys. The mention of return values ('requestToken' and 'authUrl') adds specificity.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The description implies it's the first step for authorization but doesn't state prerequisites, when-not to use, or alternatives among many sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server