Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

manage_api_keys_get_info

Retrieve detailed information about a specific API key using its key ID to inspect settings and verify access.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific API 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": {
      "key_id": "<key_id>"
    },
    "name": "manage_api_keys_get_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
key_idYesKey ID to query

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.14.0
  2. Removedv3.13.1
  3. First observedv3.4.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about whether a sensitive secret value is returned or masked, what happens with an invalid or revoked key_id, or what 'detailed' actually includes. The existence of an output schema covers return-value shape, but the sensitivity and error behavior of an API-key read remain undisclosed.

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?

One short sentence with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. It is efficiently written, though the brevity is also the source of the other gaps.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, so the minimal description is close to adequate. It still lacks any note on secret exposure or not-found behavior, which matters for an API-key credential tool.

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% and the single key_id parameter is documented as 'Key ID to query'. The description adds nothing beyond this, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Get detailed information about a specific API key') and the word 'specific' signals single-record retrieval as opposed to the sibling manage_api_keys_list. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so differentiation comes only from inference.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over manage_api_keys_list, and no prerequisites such as required permissions or valid key states. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools