get_publishable_keyRetrieve the recoverable SDK publishable key for a specific app using its app ID, so you can initialize attribution tracking in iOS and Android builds.
Reveal the recoverable SDK publishable key for an app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | The AttriKit app id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one meaningful signal beyond them: "recoverable" implies the key can be retrieved repeatedly and is not a one-time secret display. It does not note that the return is sensitive credential material that should not be logged or exposed client-side-inappropriately.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the object of the operation comes before the qualifier. It is tight, though the brevity leaves the differentiation and sensitivity notes that would make the sentence fully earn its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, so the description does not need to enumerate fields. Still missing is what an agent gets back (a plaintext key string) and whether it is safe to embed in a client SDK, which matters for a credential-retrieval tool that feeds directly into SDK configuration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Only one parameter is declared (app_id) at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, such as whether a non-existent or archived app id yields an error, which is the baseline-3 outcome for a fully documented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses a specific verb ("Reveal") plus a specific resource ("SDK publishable key for an app"), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from most siblings. However, the closest sibling rotate_publishable_key is not named, so the read-vs-rotate distinction is left implicit in the word "recoverable".
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path used when a publishable key needs to be fetched. There is no explicit statement of when to use this versus rotate_publishable_key, nor any prerequisites (app ownership, permissions) for the call.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.