Verify the configured API key to retrieve its identity, scopes, and rate limit.
Verify the configured API key. Returns the key identity, scopes, and rate limit.
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": "verify_key"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying the exact return fields (identity, scopes, rate limit). However, it does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond what annotations imply, such as what happens if the key is invalid or if network issues occur.
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?
The description is a single, focused sentence that immediately states the action and return value. There is no extraneous information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, and sibling tools indicating different domains), the description covers the essential purpose and output. It could be more complete by stating the precondition that an API key must be configured, but overall it is sufficient for a verification tool.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage, so the description has no parameter details to add. By the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate, as the description correctly implies no input is needed beyond the configured key.
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?
The description clearly states the action (verify) and the resource (configured API key), and specifies what it returns (identity, scopes, rate limit). This distinct purpose is well differentiated from sibling tools like estimate_capacity, generate_report, and pack_containers.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about prerequisites (e.g., having a configured API key), and no mention of when not to use it. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.