Retrieve API key metadata by name, including provider, safe key identifier, and health status, without exposing the real key value.
Get detailed information about a specific API key (name, provider, safe_key, health status). Does NOT return the real key value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The key name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait: it does NOT return the real key value, which is important for privacy/safety. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects such as read-only nature, required permissions, or error behavior. The single disclosure is valuable but not exhaustive.
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, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the purpose and then lists returned fields and the key exclusion. There is no fluff or redundant information, and every element earns 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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It tells what the tool returns, what it does not return, and the parameter is clearly identified. It could optionally mention error behavior or the format of 'safe_key' and 'health status', but these are not necessary for correct invocation.
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 only parameter 'name' is described in the schema as 'The key name', and the description adds no additional meaning beyond that. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3. The description does not clarify the expected format, case sensitivity, or relationship to other parameters.
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 states a specific verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('detailed information about a specific API key'), and lists the fields returned (name, provider, safe_key, health status). It also explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it does NOT return the real key value, which distinguishes it from list_keys or proxy_status.
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 implies this is for retrieving details of a single key by name, but it does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like prophetkey_list_keys (for listing all keys) or prophetkey_make_request (for making requests). The usage context is clear from the purpose, but no explicit exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.