EduBase MCP Server

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

edubase_get_integration_keys

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the keys and secrets for API and LTI integrations: app/secret, consumer key/secret, or JWK set URL and public key. Treat secrets as confidential.

Instructions

Get the keys and secrets of an integration: the app and secret of API integrations, the consumer key and secret (LTI 1.0/1.1) or the JWK set URL and public key (LTI 1.3) of LMS integrations. Treat the secrets as confidential.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`integration`	Yes	integration identification string

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`app`	No
`jwk`	No
`pem`	No
`secret`	No
`consumer`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv2.0.0Sep 15, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / app / description

Removed value: -"API application identification string, only present if the integration is an API integration"

removedOutput schema / properties / consumer / description

Removed value: -"consumer key, only present if the integration is an LMS integration using LTI 1.0/1.1"

removedOutput schema / properties / jwk / description

Removed value: -"URL for the JWK (JSON Web Key) set, only present if the integration is an LMS integration using LTI 1.3"

removedOutput schema / properties / pem / description

Removed value: -"PEM formatted public key, only present if the integration is an LMS integration using LTI 1.3"

removedOutput schema / properties / secret / description

Removed value: -"secret key, only present if the integration is an API integration or an LMS integration using LTI 1.0/1.1"

Addedv1.2.9Aug 18, 2026
Removedv1.2.8Jul 17, 2026

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.2Mar 13, 2026

addedInput schema / $schema

Added value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "app": {
+      "description": "API application identification string, only present if the integration is an API integration",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "consumer": {
+      "description": "consumer key, only present if the integration is an LMS integration using LTI 1.0/1.1",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "jwk": {
+      "description": "URL for the JWK (JSON Web Key) set, only present if the integration is an LMS integration using LTI 1.3",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "pem": {
+      "description": "PEM formatted public key, only present if the integration is an LMS integration using LTI 1.3",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "secret": {
+      "description": "secret key, only present if the integration is an API integration or an LMS integration using LTI 1.0/1.1",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.22Feb 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already indicate a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by listing exactly what kinds of secrets are returned and warning that the secrets must be treated as confidential, which goes beyond the structured hints.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences with no filler. The core operation is front-loaded, the credential variants are compactly enumerated, and the confidentiality warning earns its place as essential guidance.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With one well-documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description adds the key missing context: the nature of the returned credentials and their confidentiality. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already documents the single 'integration' parameter with 100% coverage as 'integration identification string'. The description adds that the target is an integration, but it does not explain how to identify or format the integration value beyond what the schema provides.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Get the keys and secrets of an integration') and further distinguishes the credential types by integration kind. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like edubase_get_integration or edubase_post_integration_keys.

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 the tool is used to retrieve integration credentials, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over related tools or provide exclusions. Usage context is clear but relies on inference from the getter nature and credential-specific content.

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

Deploy Server