Skip to main content
Glama
EduBase

EduBase MCP Server

Official
by EduBase
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

edubase_post_integration_keys

Rotate integration credentials to generate new keys and secrets, immediately invalidating the previous ones for enhanced security.

Instructions

Rotate the keys and secrets of an integration and return the new ones, the previous keys stop working. Confirm with the user first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
integrationYesintegration identification string

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appNo
jwkNo
pemNo
secretNo
consumerNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • 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"
  2. Addedv1.2.9
  3. Removedv1.2.8
  4. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.2
    • 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"
+}
  5. First observedv1.0.22

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses a material behavioral consequence—previous keys stop working—which goes beyond the annotations' simple write/read flags. Also states that new keys are returned and that user confirmation is required, giving an agent the risk context needed before invoking.

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?

Two sentences with the core action and consequence in the first and the safety precondition in the second. No redundant wording; every clause adds value.

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?

For a single-parameter mutation with an output schema, the description tells the agent what happens, what to do before calling, and what to expect. Nothing essential is missing.

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 describes the only parameter ('integration identification string') with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a precise action ('Rotate') and target ('keys and secrets of an integration'), and specifies the outcome: new keys are returned and the previous ones stop working. This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like edubase_get_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 Guidelines4/5

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

The instruction to 'Confirm with the user first' establishes a clear precondition and implies this is a consequential operation, not a routine read. It does not explicitly name alternatives or enumerate when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools