Skip to main content
Glama

spix_auth_key_list

View and manage authentication keys for the Spix MCP server to enable AI agents to access phone, voice, and communication features.

Instructions

List API keys

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The `create_tool_handler` function is the universal handler that takes an MCP tool name, resolves it via `get_schema_by_tool_name`, and dispatches the request to the appropriate backend API endpoint.
    async def create_tool_handler(
        session: McpSessionContext,
        tool_name: str,
        arguments: dict,
    ) -> list:
        """Execute an MCP tool call by dispatching to the backend API.
    
        This function:
        1. Resolves the tool name to a command schema
        2. Validates session scope (playbook access, channel access)
        3. Builds the API request
        4. Dispatches to the backend
        5. Returns the response as MCP TextContent
    
        Args:
            session: The MCP session context for scope validation.
            tool_name: The MCP tool name (e.g., "spix_playbook_create").
            arguments: The tool arguments from the MCP client.
    
        Returns:
            List containing a single TextContent with the JSON response.
        """
        # Import here to avoid circular imports and handle missing mcp package
        try:
            from mcp.types import TextContent
        except ImportError:
            # Fallback for when mcp is not installed
            class TextContent:  # type: ignore[no-redef]
                def __init__(self, type: str, text: str) -> None:
                    self.type = type
                    self.text = text
    
        # Resolve tool name to schema
        schema = get_schema_by_tool_name(tool_name)
        if not schema:
            return [
                TextContent(
                    type="text",
                    text=orjson.dumps(
                        {"ok": False, "error": {"code": "unknown_tool", "message": f"Unknown tool: {tool_name}"}}
                    ).decode(),
                )
            ]
    
        # Validate tool access (not disabled)
        try:
            session.validate_tool_access(schema.path)
        except Exception as e:
            from spix_mcp.session import McpScopeError
    
            if isinstance(e, McpScopeError):
                return [TextContent(type="text", text=orjson.dumps({"ok": False, "error": e.to_dict()}).decode())]
            raise
    
        # Validate channel access if applicable
        channel = infer_channel_from_tool(schema.path)
        if channel:
            try:
                session.validate_channel_access(channel)
            except Exception as e:
                from spix_mcp.session import McpScopeError
    
                if isinstance(e, McpScopeError):
                    return [TextContent(type="text", text=orjson.dumps({"ok": False, "error": e.to_dict()}).decode())]
                raise
    
        # Handle playbook_id: validate and apply default
        playbook_id = arguments.get("playbook_id")
        try:
            effective_playbook = session.validate_playbook_access(playbook_id)
            if effective_playbook and not playbook_id:
                # Apply default playbook
                arguments["playbook_id"] = effective_playbook
        except Exception as e:
            from spix_mcp.session import McpScopeError
    
            if isinstance(e, McpScopeError):
                return [TextContent(type="text", text=orjson.dumps({"ok": False, "error": e.to_dict()}).decode())]
            raise
    
        # Build endpoint URL with path parameters
        endpoint, remaining_args = build_endpoint_url(schema, arguments)
    
        # Dispatch to backend API
        client = session.client
        method = schema.http_method.lower()
    
        if method == "get":
            response = await asyncio.to_thread(client.get, endpoint, params=remaining_args if remaining_args else None)
        elif method == "post":
            response = await asyncio.to_thread(client.post, endpoint, json=remaining_args if remaining_args else None)
        elif method == "patch":
            response = await asyncio.to_thread(client.patch, endpoint, json=remaining_args if remaining_args else None)
        elif method == "delete":
            response = await asyncio.to_thread(client.delete, endpoint, params=remaining_args if remaining_args else None)
        else:
            response = await asyncio.to_thread(client.get, endpoint)
    
        # Build response envelope
        envelope: dict = {"ok": response.ok, "meta": response.meta}
        if response.ok:
            envelope["data"] = response.data
            if response.pagination:
                envelope["pagination"] = response.pagination
            if response.warnings:
                envelope["warnings"] = response.warnings
        else:
            envelope["error"] = response.error
    
        return [TextContent(type="text", text=orjson.dumps(envelope).decode())]
  • The `spix_auth_key_list` tool (corresponding to the `auth.key.list` path) is defined in the `COMMAND_REGISTRY` here. MCP tools are generated dynamically from this registry.
    CommandSchema(
        path="auth.key.list",
        cli_usage="spix auth key list",
        http_method="GET",
        api_endpoint="/auth/keys",
        mcp_expose="tool",
        mcp_profile="safe",
        description="List API keys",
    ),
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List API keys' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires admin permissions, returns paginated results, includes metadata like creation dates, or has rate limits. For a tool that likely involves sensitive authentication data, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, efficient phrase ('List API keys') with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable and understandable. This is an excellent example of conciseness for a simple tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. However, for an authentication-related tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention security context (e.g., 'requires admin access' or 'lists all API keys for the current account'). The lack of output schema means the description doesn't clarify what 'list' returns (e.g., array of key objects vs. IDs), leaving gaps in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema is fully described). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate. It correctly implies no inputs are required, which aligns with the schema.

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?

The description 'List API keys' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('API keys'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like spix_auth_key_create (which creates keys) and spix_auth_whoami (which shows user info). However, it lacks specificity about scope (e.g., all keys vs. user-specific) which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication), when this is appropriate (e.g., for key management vs. using spix_auth_whoami for user info), or any limitations. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for optimal tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Spix-HQ/spix-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server