Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Hub

MCP Hub

by airano-ir
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

manage_api_keys_rotate

Rotate all API keys for a project by creating replacements with identical scopes and revoking old keys—use it for routine security rotation or when keys may be compromised.

Instructions

Rotate all keys for a project.

Creates new keys with the same scopes and revokes old ones. Use this for security rotation or if keys may be compromised.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "manage_api_keys_rotate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject ID to rotate keys for

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

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the core mutation: new keys are minted with identical scopes and the old ones are revoked, i.e. existing credentials stop working. It leaves out permission requirements, whether revocation is immediate/irreversible, and any propagation delay for a destructive operation, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short lines: the action first, then the mechanism, then the motivating use case. Every sentence carries information and nothing is padded.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a single-parameter, output-schema-backed tool this is close to sufficient: the effect on existing keys is stated and the return values are covered by the output schema. It could go further on permissions and irreversibility, which matter for a credential-rotation mutation with no annotations.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines project_id fully. The description adds no format, ID source, or constraint detail beyond what the schema states; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Rotate all keys for a project") and explains the mechanism ("Creates new keys with the same scopes and revokes old ones"), which implicitly separates it from the create/revoke/delete siblings. It stops short of naming an alternative to use for a single-key operation, so it is clear but not fully sibling-differentiated.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use context: security rotation or suspected compromise. There is no when-not guidance and no named alternative (e.g. revoke-only for a single leaked key), so an agent must infer the boundary against manage_api_keys_revoke.

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