Generate a new SECRET_KEY for Remnawave node configuration. Resolve missing or outdated keys by creating a fresh secret to authenticate and secure node connections.
Generate a new SECRET_KEY for node configuration
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes a generation action but does not explain whether this overwrites an existing key, whether it has side effects on node configuration, or whether it is reversible. Without any info on state change or return behavior, the agent cannot anticipate consequences.
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, succinct sentence that communicates the essential function without any extraneous words. It is appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and gets straight to what it does.
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 zero-parameter tool, the description is mostly complete: the agent knows the action and the domain. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, key operational details are missing, such as what the generated key looks like, whether it is persisted or returned, and whether existing keys are invalidated. This gap is modest but leaves some uncertainty.
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)Skip the schema is trivially 100% coveredadian. The description correctly implies that no input is needed to generate the key. Since there are no parameters, no further semantic clarification is required, and a baseline of 4 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and names the resource ('SECRET_KEY for node configuration'). It clearly identifies the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from the sibling system_generate_x25519, which generates a different key type. It could be slightly clearer about what makes SECRET_KEY unique, but it is not a tautology.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like system_generate_x25519 or other node configuration tools. It does not state prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool should be preferred. The use case is implied but not explicitly framed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.