Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCPDactyl

MCPDactyl

by MrMirhan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List SSH keys

account_sshkey_list

Lists SSH keys stored on a Pterodactyl account, helping you review and verify keys used for server access management.

Instructions

List the account's SSH keys.

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": "account_sshkey_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
panelNoName of a saved panel. Omit to use the active or default panel.
baseUrlNoInline panel URL override, e.g. https://panel.example.com. Not persisted.
clientKeyNoInline client API key (ptlc_…) override. Not persisted.
applicationKeyNoInline application API key (ptla_…) override. Not persisted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'List' but not stated), whether private key material is exposed, whether results are paginated, or whether panel/auth overrides are validated. 'List' is the only behavioral signal.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness borders on under-specification handled elsewhere.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and four auth/panel-override parameters, the description should at least note what is returned (e.g., key fingerprints vs. private material) and the auth-override behavior. For a tool this simple it is close to adequate, but the absence of any behavioral or return context leaves real gaps.

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 100%, so the four parameters (panel, baseUrl, clientKey, applicationKey) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the account's SSH keys'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings account_sshkey_create and account_sshkey_remove, but the verb does the work implicitly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus other account tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of what it does not cover (create/remove). The agent must infer everything from the name.

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