Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bybit-mcp

bybit-mcp

by JohnnyWic
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

modify_sub_api_key

Modify permissions of a sub API key, including setting read-only access or custom permission object.

Instructions

Modify sub API key permissions.

Args: apikey: Sub API key (optional). 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_sub_api_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
apikeyNo
permissionsNo
read_onlyNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits beyond the basic operation. It fails to mention authentication needs, rate limits, reversibility, or side effects of modifying permissions. The agent has little insight into the tool's behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise, with a clear initial purpose statement. However, the bullet-point format for parameters is inconsistent (e.g., use of parentheses for optionality, no uniform structure). It is adequate but not polished.

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?

Given the lack of annotations, input schema coverage, and output schema, the description should provide more context. It does not explain what the function returns, error handling, or the full effect of modification. The complexity of nested objects (permissions) is unaddressed.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by explaining the meaning of 'read_only' (0: Read and Write, 1: Read only, -1 to skip). However, it does not elaborate on the structure of the 'permissions' object or the expected format of 'apikey', leaving significant gaps.

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 sub API key permissions,' which is a specific verb-resource combination. The name itself is descriptive, and it is distinct from sibling tools like create_sub_api_key, delete_sub_api_key, and get_sub_api_keys, which handle different operations.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios where modification is appropriate, or compare with create/delete/get for sub API keys. The agent is left without context for decision-making.

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