local-kms-mcp-server

get_key_info

Retrieve key pair details such as public key, algorithm, and creation date for a specified key ID to verify and manage signing keys locally in your MCP environment.

Instructions

Get the key pair information for the given key ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keyId`	Yes	Unique key identifier

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`algo`	Yes	The algorithm used for the key pair
`keyId`	Yes	The key ID for the stored key pair
`version`	Yes	The version of the key pair
`createdAt`	No	The creation date of the key pair
`publicKey`	Yes	The public key information for the given key ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It lacks details on read-only nature, authentication needs, error behavior (e.g., if keyId doesn't exist), or any side effects. The description is too minimal to inform an agent about behavioral traits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that directly conveys the purpose. No extraneous information. However, it could be more structured (e.g., listing constraints or outputs) without harming conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, output schema exists), the description is adequate but lacks usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. It covers the core action but leaves gaps that might confuse agents.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema covers the single parameter with a description 'Unique key identifier'. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema provides. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get'), the resource ('key pair information'), and the parameter ('given key ID'). It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'delete_key' or 'generate_key' by indicating this is a read-only retrieval operation.

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?

The description implies usage for retrieving key info, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_keys' or 'check_keypair'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites are provided.

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

Deploy Server