Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-remnawave

mcp-remnawave

by Nurullaev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

api_tokens_create

Create a scoped API token by specifying its name, scopes, and lifetime. Omit scopes to grant full access.

Instructions

Create a new API token (API 3.x: tokens are scoped)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "expiresInDays": "<expiresInDays>"
    },
    "name": "api_tokens_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesToken name
scopesNoToken scopes (see api_tokens_scopes_list); omit for full access
expiresInDaysYesToken lifetime in days

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses only that API 3.x tokens are scoped, but omits critical behaviors: whether the token secret is returned only once, whether existing tokens are affected, and any permission requirements.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single 9-word sentence that puts the verb and object first. No redundant or filler content; it is appropriately short.

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 output schema or annotations, the description is too sparse for a create operation. It fails to mention what the response contains (e.g., the token value), how to discover valid scopes, or any post-creation consequences, which are important for an API token creation tool.

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?

The input schema fully describes all three parameters (name, scopes, expiresInDays) with its own descriptions, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The 'omit for full access' behavior is documented in the schema, not the description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new API token'. Among the api_tokens_* siblings, only this one creates tokens, so no ambiguity; the parenthetical about API 3.x scoping adds useful context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this vs alternatives like api_tokens_list or api_tokens_delete. The name implies creation, but there is no statement about prerequisites (e.g., needing to list scopes first) or exclusion cases.

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