tailscale-blade-mcp

ts_keys

Lists Tailscale auth keys with ID, description, reusable/ephemeral/preauth flags, tags, and expiry. Optionally filter by scope for infrastructure, personal, or home.

Instructions

List auth keys: ID, description, reusable/ephemeral/preauth flags, tags, expiry.

Optional scope arg filters keys by DD-278 scope-tag mapping. Output includes a Track 3 _meta envelope as a JSON tail line.

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_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	No	DD-278 scope filter: 'infrastructure' \| 'personal' \| 'home'. Filtered client-side after fetch — matches the key's capabilities.devices.create.tags against the scope tag set.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.9.0Jun 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description notes that scope filtering is client-side after fetch and that output includes a Track 3 _meta envelope, providing useful behavioral details beyond a simple 'list' action. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, and it does well.

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, front-loaded with the main action and output fields, and contains no unnecessary words.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description appropriately summarizes the output fields and mentions the _meta envelope. It covers all essential aspects for a list tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value for the 'scope' parameter beyond what the schema already states. The description includes the parameter but does not provide new semantics.

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 it lists auth keys with specific fields (ID, description, flags, tags, expiry), distinguishing it from related siblings like ts_create_key and ts_delete_key.

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 description explains the optional scope parameter and its function, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ts_acl or ts_devices. However, the purpose is clear enough for basic usage.

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