Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
RCA-MCP Connector

RCA-MCP Connector

by dave1362
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

rca_auth_list_keys

Read-onlyIdempotent

List your API keys and their metadata to identify key_id for rotation or revocation. Only available on Pro and Enterprise plans; Free and Starter plans return a security violation.

Instructions

List your own API keys and their metadata. Never returns raw or hashed key material. Requires the multi-key feature (Pro plan or above -- up to 5 keys on Pro, unlimited on Enterprise); Free/Starter keys get a security_violation error, since those plans only ever have the one key they authenticated with.

Use the returned key_id values with rca_auth_rotate_key or rca_auth_revoke_token to act on a specific key.

Returns: str: JSON with total and a list of {key_id, label, plan_at_issue, created_at, last_used_at, is_active}

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": {
      "params": "<params>"
    },
    "name": "rca_auth_list_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
paramsYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv4.1.16
    • changedInput schema / $defs / ListKeysInput / properties / token / description
      Previous value: -"API key (admin role required)"New value: +"API key to authenticate this request"
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv4.1.15
    • addedInput schema / $defs / ListKeysInput / properties / client_id / description
      Added value: +"Client namespace ID"
  3. First observedv4.1.13

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint annotations, the description reveals that key material is never returned, that plan restrictions cause a specific error, and what fields the returned JSON contains. This gives the agent a clear behavioral model.

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?

The description is focused and well-structured: purpose, security guarantee, plan requirement with follow-up usage, and return format. It is slightly detailed for such a simple listing tool, but every sentence adds meaningful information and nothing is filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The definition covers the purpose, security expectations, error conditions, sibling tool integration, and return structure. The schema covers parameters and annotations cover read-only/idempotent behavior, so an agent has everything needed to call this tool correctly.

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?

The description does not elaborate on the token or client_id parameters, but the input schema itself provides descriptions: token is 'API key to authenticate this request' and client_id is 'Client namespace ID' with a default. Thus the agent already has parameter-level meaning, and the description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List your own API keys and their metadata.' It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly stating it never returns raw or hashed key material and by pointing to rotate/revoke tools for acting on keys.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly states when the tool is usable: requires the multi-key feature, with Pro/Enterprise limits, and that Free/Starter plans will get a security_violation error. It also tells the agent to use returned key_id values with rca_auth_rotate_key or rca_auth_revoke_token for follow-up actions.

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