Retrieve a complete list of API tokens to review and manage access credentials for the Remnawave VPN panel.
List all API tokens
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": "api_tokens_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are not provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and resource without mentioning potential side effects, authentication requirements, return format, pagination, or any rate limits. For a listing operation, the behavior is mostly self-evident, but the description offers no additional context beyond the bare action.
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 concise sentence that is immediately clear and front-loaded. It contains no unnecessary words or fluff, making it an efficient and well-structured definition.
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 no-parameter list tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it leaves out useful context such as the expected return shape (e.g., an array of token objects) and whether authentication is required. Since there is no output schema, the description could have provided a hint about the response format. It is complete enough for a straightforward call, but could be richer.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is an empty object with 100% coverage. With no parameters to explain, the description does not need to add parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate because there is nothing to clarify, and the description correctly omits any parameter-related content.
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 'List all API tokens' clearly states a specific verb ('list') and resource ('API tokens'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like api_tokens_create, api_tokens_delete, and api_tokens_scopes_list. The purpose is unambiguous even without examining the schema or siblings.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools such as api_tokens_scopes_list or explain under what circumstances one might prefer listing scopes over tokens. For a simple list tool, this guidance is not strictly necessary, but the dimension asks for explicit usage context, which is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.