ris_show_public_keyPrint the dedicated public key and fingerprint for RISBridge MCP. Verify or share your public key without reading or exposing the private key.
Print the dedicated public key and its fingerprint. The private key is never read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| profile | No | Named profile from ~/.risbridge-mcp/config.json. Omit for the default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safe-read profile is covered. The description adds one useful disclosure beyond that – 'The private key is never read' – which reassures the agent about sensitive-data exposure, but it offers no further operational detail (output format, key type, fingerprint algorithm).
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 tight sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the safety caveat following. 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 one-optional-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (public key plus fingerprint). It could go slightly further on the return shape, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.
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 the single 'profile' parameter is fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about the profile parameter or how omitting it behaves.
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: 'Print the dedicated public key and its fingerprint.' An agent can tell this reads a key rather than creating or configuring one. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like ris_setup_ssh_key or ris_show_config.
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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. It never says e.g. 'use this to retrieve a key for authorized_keys' or how it relates to ris_setup_ssh_key. Usage must be inferred entirely from the purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.