Homespun

Manage API Key

key

Destructive

Inspect your API key details or revoke it permanently. Revocation is immediate and irreversible.

Instructions

Inspect or revoke the calling agent's API key. ONE tool with an action enum: list (key info — agent_id, key_prefix, timestamps) | revoke (self-destruct the agent's OWN key; it stops working immediately and is irreversible — pass confirm:true). The relay scopes keys to the caller, so both act only on your own key.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "key"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes	The calling agent's API key. list: key info (agent_id, key_prefix, timestamps). revoke: self-destruct the agent's OWN key — it stops working immediately and is irreversible (requires confirm:true).
`confirm`	No	Required (true) for revoke.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Description discloses all behavioral traits: destructive hint is confirmed with 'self-destruct' and 'irreversible'; scoping to caller is added context not in annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and includes essential details without extraneous text. Efficient and clear.

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 no output schema, description adequately covers return info for list and effect of revoke. Completeness is high for a simple 2-parameter tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining the conditional requirement of 'confirm' for revoke and listing the output of 'list', going beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Inspect or revoke the calling agent's API key' with specific actions (list and revoke). Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools which do not involve key management.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides context for when to use each action, including that revoke is irreversible and requires confirm:true. Lacks explicit mention of when not to use, but given no direct sibling overlap, the guidance is sufficient.

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