Skip to main content
Glama
acchuang

Jina AI Remote MCP Server

by acchuang

show_api_key

Retrieve the bearer token from MCP settings for debugging authentication issues with Jina AI web tools.

Instructions

Return the bearer token from the Authorization header of the MCP settings, which is used to debug.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The async handler function for the 'show_api_key' tool. It retrieves the bearer token from the request props and returns it as text content, or an error message if no token is found.
    async () => {
    	const props = getProps();
    	const token = props.bearerToken as string;
    	if (!token) {
    		return {
    			content: [
    				{
    					type: "text" as const,
    					text: "No bearer token found in request",
    				},
    			],
    			isError: true,
    		};
    	}
    	return {
    		content: [
    			{
    				type: "text" as const,
    				text: token,
    			},
    		],
    	};
    },
  • Registration of the 'show_api_key' tool via server.tool call within registerJinaTools function, including name, description, empty schema, and inline handler.
    server.tool(
    	"show_api_key",
    	"Return the bearer token from the Authorization header of the MCP settings, which is used to debug.",
    	{},
    	async () => {
    		const props = getProps();
    		const token = props.bearerToken as string;
    		if (!token) {
    			return {
    				content: [
    					{
    						type: "text" as const,
    						text: "No bearer token found in request",
    					},
    				],
    				isError: true,
    			};
    		}
    		return {
    			content: [
    				{
    					type: "text" as const,
    					text: token,
    				},
    			],
    		};
    	},
    );
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns sensitive authentication data (a bearer token), which hints at security implications, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if the token is masked or exposed in full, or any rate limits. The description adds some context ('used to debug') but lacks critical details for a security-sensitive operation.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action ('Return the bearer token') and adds purpose ('used to debug'). There is zero waste, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.

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 complexity (simple, no parameters) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description is minimally complete: it explains what the tool does and its purpose. However, for a tool handling sensitive authentication data, it should ideally include more security or usage warnings to fully inform the agent, leaving some gaps in context.

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%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't discuss parameters, which is appropriate, earning a baseline score of 4 for adequately handling the lack of parameters without unnecessary elaboration.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Return the bearer token from the Authorization header of the MCP settings' with the specific goal 'which is used to debug.' It uses a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('bearer token'), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, which are unrelated debugging/utility tools.

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 minimal guidance: it implies usage for debugging purposes but offers no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice. It doesn't mention alternatives or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and description alone.

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/acchuang/jina-mcp'

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