local-kms-mcp-server

rotate_key

Rotate a key pair for a given key ID while preserving its algorithm. Provide the keyId to generate a new key pair without changing the encryption method.

Instructions

Rotate the key pair for the given key ID, preserving the existing algorithm

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "keyId": "<keyId>"
    },
    "name": "rotate_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keyId`	Yes	Unique key identifier

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`newPublicKey`	Yes	New public public key after rotation (base64-encoded DER/SPKI)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, description must disclose side effects. It only mentions algorithm preservation but omits critical behavioral traits: whether old key is invalidated immediately, if active sessions/signatures are affected, or required permissions. This is insufficient for a security-sensitive mutation.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words. However, the sentence could be restructured to front-load key information; it is acceptable but not perfectly optimized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is too minimal for a key rotation operation. Despite presence of an output schema (not shown), it fails to mention return values, preconditions, or post-conditions. Leaves agent uncertain about the tool's impact and output.

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?

Schema covers 100% of parameters with a description ('Unique key identifier'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond restating the schema's purpose. Baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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?

Description clearly states the action (rotate), resource (key pair), scope (by key ID), and constraint (preserve algorithm). It distinguishes from siblings like generate_key (creates new), delete_key (removes), and sign_message (uses key).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to rotate vs alternatives (e.g., generate new key, check key health). The description does not mention prerequisites, best practices, or disclaimers for using this tool over others.

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

Deploy Server