Skip to main content
Glama

List Extract API Keys

averra_list_api_keys
Read-onlyIdempotent

List all API keys for your authenticated account to view metadata, identify keys for management, and audit access permissions.

Instructions

List all API keys for the authenticated account.

Returns metadata only — the actual plaintext keys are never returned (only prefixes). Includes both active and revoked keys, ordered by creation date (newest first).

Args:

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json', optional): Output format. Default 'markdown'.

Returns: For JSON format: { "keys": [ { "id": string, // Key ID (use for revoke operations) "key_prefix": string, // First 12 chars of key "plan": "free" | "starter" | "pro" | "scale", // Decorated from the account profile — identical across every key on the account. "monthly_limit": number, // Decorated from the account profile — identical across every key on the account. "is_active": boolean, // false if revoked "created_at": string, // ISO 8601 "revoked_at": string | null // ISO 8601 if revoked, null otherwise } ] }

Examples:

  • Use when: User asks "How many API keys do I have?"

  • Use when: Need to find a key's ID before revoking it.

  • Use when: Auditing which keys exist and their plans.

Error Handling:

  • 401: Invalid API key — check AVERRA_EXTRACT_API_KEY

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' for human-readable output (default), 'json' for machine-readable structured datamarkdown
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that plaintext keys are never returned (only prefixes), includes both active and revoked keys, orders by creation date, and notes that plan/limit are identical across keys. This enriches behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (description, Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling), but includes verbose JSON output details that could be omitted if an output schema existed. Sentences are front-loaded and purposeful, though the Returns section is lengthy for a tool without an output schema.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (1 optional parameter), rich annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameter, return format, examples, and error handling. The detailed JSON output compensates for the lack of output schema, ensuring the agent understands the response structure.

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%, with the schema fully documenting the optional 'response_format' parameter (enum, default, description). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only restating the parameter in the Args section without new semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all API keys for the authenticated account'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it returns metadata only (not plaintext keys), unlike averra_create_api_key (creates) or averra_revoke_api_key (revokes).

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It provides explicit 'Use when' examples (e.g., 'How many API keys do I have?', 'Need to find a key's ID before revoking it'), which clearly indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives like averra_revoke_api_key (for revocation) or averra_check_usage (for usage data).

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/Swwyymm/averra-extract-mcp'

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