Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bybit-mcp

bybit-mcp

by JohnnyWic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

modify_master_api_key

Modify the permissions of a master API key, switching between read-only and read-write access as needed.

Instructions

Modify master API key permissions.

Args: permissions: Permission object (optional). read_only: 0: Read and Write, 1: Read only (optional, -1 to skip).

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": "modify_master_api_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
permissionsNo
read_onlyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must carry full burden. It does not disclose side effects, reversibility, authentication needs, or the impact of modifying permissions. For a mutation tool, this is insufficient.

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?

The description is short and direct, listing parameters in a simple format. No superfluous information, though a more structured layout could improve readability.

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?

Lacks details on return value, prerequisites (e.g., existing master API key), and behavioral context. Given zero annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete for safe/effective use.

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 0%, so the description adds some value by explaining the 'read_only' parameter's possible values (0: Read/Write, 1: Read only, -1 to skip). However, the 'permissions' object is only described as 'Permission object (optional)' without structure details.

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 'Modify master API key permissions,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'modify_sub_api_key' by targeting master keys.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'delete_master_api_key' or 'create_sub_api_key'. The description lacks context on prerequisites or exclusions.

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