Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sprrint

sprrint

by ejasmuhamed
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

sprrint_keys_create

Generate an API key for Sprrint to authenticate MCP access. The full token is displayed only once, so save it immediately.

Instructions

Create an API key. The full token is returned once.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sprrint_keys_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoMCP
sourceNomcp

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'The full token is returned once' is a genuinely useful behavior disclosure because it tells the agent/caller that the secret must be captured immediately. But it does not cover auth requirements, permissions, key scopes, or any destructive/ireversible effects of creation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two terse sentences, each earning its place. The action is first and the critical security-relevant constraint ('returned once') follows immediately. No unnecessary wording.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-optional-parameter creation tool, the description gives the essential purpose and the most important output fact. But with no output schema and no annotations, it still leaves parameter semantics, return format, and any permission/context requirements unexplained. It is adequate but has clear 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% and the description does not mention `name` or `source` at all. The parameter semantics are left entirely to the schema defaults, and `source` in particular remains ambiguous. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Create an API key.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling keys/read tools such as sprrint_keys_list, and from create tools for other entities like projects/tasks/sprints.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use is implied: call this when you need to create an API key. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of sprrint_keys_list for listing keys, and no prerequisites or alternatives are named.

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