tailscale-blade-mcp

ts_create_key

Create a new authentication key for your Tailscale tailnet. Configure key reuse, device ephemerality, preauthorization, tags, and expiration.

Instructions

Create a new auth key. Requires TAILSCALE_WRITE_ENABLED=true.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ts_create_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`description`	No	Description for the auth key
`reusable`	No	Allow key to be used multiple times
`ephemeral`	No	Devices using this key are ephemeral (auto-removed)
`preauthorized`	No	Devices are pre-approved (no manual auth needed)
`tags`	No	ACL tags for devices using this key
`expiry_seconds`	No	Key lifetime in seconds (default 86400 = 24h)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only mentions the environment requirement but fails to disclose side effects, success/failure behavior, or output format beyond what the output schema provides.

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 unnecessary words, front-loading the verb and resource immediately.

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?

For a simple creation tool with a complete schema and output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks details on error conditions or usage nuances.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline.

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 'Create a new auth key.' This is a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ts_delete_key (delete) and ts_keys (list).

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 includes a prerequisite (TAILSCALE_WRITE_ENABLED=true) but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ts_keys or ts_delete_key.

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