Scan discovered skills to identify which BYOK API keys are present and which are missing, so you can configure the missing ones to unlock more capabilities.
Scan all discovered skills and report which BYOK API keys are present vs. missing in the current environment. Helps you know what to configure to unlock more skills.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a non-destructive reporting operation through 'scan' and 'report', and it explains that the report compares present vs. missing keys in the current environment. It does not detail whether key values are exposed, what environment access is required, or what the exact output shape is, so some behavioral ambiguity remains.
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 two front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the operation and scope, and the second explains the practical value. Every word earns its place.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema reporting tool, the description is largely complete: it says what is scanned, what is reported (present vs. missing keys), and why it matters. It could have briefly mentioned output format or explicitly routed to list_skills for skill-level details, but those omissions are minor given the low complexity.
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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema already covers everything at 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but none is needed since invocation requires no arguments.
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 a specific action: scanning discovered skills and reporting which BYOK API keys are present vs. missing. It identifies the resource (BYOK API keys) and the purpose (knowing what to configure), and it is naturally distinguished from the siblings, which focus on skills rather than key availability. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast itself with a sibling such as list_skills.
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 gives a clear use case: use this tool when you need to know which BYOK API keys must be configured to unlock more skills. It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to recognize the intended scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.