get_endpoint_keyRetrieves an endpoint’s access key for owners and admins so they can access their server when explicitly requested.
An Endpoint's key (owners and admins). Only when the person asks for it: it gives access to their server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endpoint | Yes | Endpoint name or id |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| url | Yes | ||
| endpoint | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses an authorization constraint (owners and admins only) and the security consequence (the key grants access to their server). It does not say what happens on an unauthorized request or warn about handling the returned secret.
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?
Two short clauses, front-loaded with what the tool returns and immediately followed by the usage gate — no filler. The phrasing is slightly telegraphic (a fragment rather than a sentence), which costs a point but not readability.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the permission gate plus the access implication are stated. However, for a credential-revealing tool it omits error behavior when the caller is not an owner/admin and any caution about exposing or logging the key.
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?
There is a single parameter and schema coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting "Endpoint name or id." The description adds no additional meaning about that parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 identifies the resource (an Endpoint's key) and its audience (owners and admins), which is specific enough to distinguish it from list_endpoints or create_endpoint. It reads as a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb+resource statement, so it stops short of the top score, but an agent can tell what it returns.
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?
"Only when the person asks for it" is an explicit gating condition, which is stronger than typical implied usage. It does not name alternatives or explain what to do when the caller lacks owner/admin rights, but the primary when-to-use rule is stated outright.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.