Verify if a key pair exists for a given key ID to ensure it is ready for signing.
Check if a key pair exists for the given key ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyId | Yes | Unique key identifier |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| exists | Yes | Whether a key pair exists for this key ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It implies a read-only existence check with no side effects, but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive, idempotent, or what happens on missing keys (e.g., returns false vs throws error). The basic behavior is conveyed, but details are lacking.
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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose. It earns its place but could benefit from slight restructuring to include behavioral cues. However, it is not verbose and avoids redundancy.
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?
Given the low complexity of this tool (one parameter, boolean check) and the presence of an output schema (indicated by context signals), the description is nearly complete. It could explicitly mention the return type (e.g., boolean) but the output schema likely covers that. The description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's core function.
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% for the single parameter keyId, described as 'Unique key identifier'. The tool description adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema already provides. Since coverage is high, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Check' and the resource 'key pair existence' for a specific key ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_key_info which likely returns full details, and delete_key/generate_key which are mutations. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For instance, it does not mention that get_key_info could provide full details or that this tool is suitable as a precondition check before generating or deleting a key. An agent would have to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.