Retrieve a list of active API keys for the signed-in user to audit or manage access.
List active API keys for the signed-in user.
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_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The word 'List' conveys a read-only operation, and 'active' clarifies the filter, but the description does not disclose whether actual secret key values are returned, whether pagination applies, or any other response behavior.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word contributes semantic value.
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 list tool this description is largely complete: the agent knows what to call and what it will get at a high level. However, with no output schema and no annotations, return-shape details and the distinction from key-creation tools are left implicit.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing to document. The description still adds useful context by specifying the implicit scope is the signed-in user, which the empty schema cannot convey. Baseline 4 is appropriate.
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 the verb ('List'), the resource ('active API keys'), and the scope ('for the signed-in user'). It also distinguishes the tool from its sibling sprrint_keys_create without requiring the agent to inspect the schema.
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 implies when to use the tool: whenever active API keys for the signed-in user are needed. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when not to use it, and it does not reference the sibling key-management tools such as sprrint_keys_create.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.