hamravesh-mcp

hamravesh_create_apikey

Creates a new API key for an organization. The generated key is shown only once, so save it immediately.

Instructions

ساخت یک کلید API جدید برای سازمان. مقدار کلید فقط همین یک بار برمی‌گردد. (غیرفعال — برای فعال‌سازی HAMRAVESH_ALLOW_WRITE=1) [پیش‌نمایش: dry_run:true یا env HAMRAVESH_DRY_RUN=1]

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "hamravesh_create_apikey"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`org`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses that the key value is returned only once and that the tool is disabled by default, requiring an environment variable to activate. Also mentions a preview dry-run mode. No annotations exist, so description carries the burden, but it omits details like auth or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is relatively short but includes technical details in parentheses and brackets. It is not front-loaded with the most critical information, and the Persian text may reduce clarity for non-native readers.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a write operation with no output schema and incomplete parameter documentation, the description lacks explanation of return format, error conditions, and parameter roles. It covers key behavioral traits but leaves significant gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds no meaning to the parameters 'name' or 'org'. It does not specify expected format, constraints, or the role of 'org'.

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 verb 'Create' and the resource 'new API key for the organization', distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete or list. However, the note about being disabled adds minor ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites or context for setting the activation environment variable is provided beyond a note.

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