Validate an API key to retrieve its plan tier, associated email, and usage statistics such as total scans and last scan date.
Check your API key status — returns plan tier (free/pro/certified), email, and usage stats (total scans, last scan date).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | The API key to validate. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does explain the return output (plan tier, email, usage stats), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly indicate whether the operation is read-only or what happens for invalid keys, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and then enumerates the return data. Every word is informative and there is no wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it states what the tool does and what the user gets back. It does not specify error handling, but the scope is small and the return values are well covered. A 4 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameter 'api_key' is already well-documented. The description does not add any new parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline score of 3 for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('your API key status') and lists specific return values (plan tier, email, usage stats). It distinguishes itself from siblings like register_free_key and get_pricing by focusing on validation of an existing key rather than registration or pricing.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need to check an API key's status. It provides clear context (checking status) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. This fits the 'clear context, no exclusions' level.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.