get_api_key_details
Retrieve details of a specific API key by providing its key ID.
Instructions
Get API key information.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_id | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Retrieve details of a specific API key by providing its key ID.
Get API key information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'Get API key information' without stating if it's read-only, what happens for invalid keys, or any limits. Completely fails to disclose behavior.
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 description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it is overly terse, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity. It fits in one line but fails to be informative.
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?
Despite having an output schema and only one required parameter, the description is too minimal to be complete. It does not clarify the scope (single key) or any return characteristics. Significant gaps exist.
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 input schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond 'Get API key information', leaving the required 'key_id' parameter unexplained. An agent gets no help understanding what value to pass.
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 'Get API key information' states a verb and resource, but it is vague and does not distinguish from sibling 'list_api_keys' which also retrieves API key data. The single-key nature is implied by the name 'get_api_key_details' but not explicitly stated.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_api_key', 'delete_api_key', or 'list_api_keys'. The description offers no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/BrooksIan/SSB-MCP-Server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server