Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
urai-router

urai-router

Official
by etside
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

urai_keys

Inspect masked API keys, provider health, cooldowns, and key counts to monitor and troubleshoot LLM key routing.

Instructions

Show masked API keys, health, cooldowns and key counts per provider.

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": "urai_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that keys are returned masked and that cooldown/health state is surfaced, which implies a non-destructive read, but it never states permissions required, whether calls hit a live provider, or what the response shape looks like.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the returned data enumerated after. Nothing is padded, though the comma list is dense enough that a reader must parse four separate concepts from one clause.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description is the only source of return-value information, and it does name the four data categories. It falls short of a full contract: no pagination, no ordering, no indication of what 'health' or 'cooldown' values mean, and no tie-in to how the agent should act on them.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly omits any parameter discussion rather than inventing scope or filter options.

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

Purpose4/5

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

Specific verb 'Show' plus a concrete list of resources (API keys, health, cooldowns, key counts) scoped 'per provider'. It is distinguishable from urai_chat, urai_models or urai_setup, though it overlaps conceptually with urai_health and urai_stats without clarifying the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With siblings like urai_health, urai_stats and urai_check in the same namespace, the description should say whether this is the diagnostics entry point or a narrower key-inventory view, but it leaves that to inference.

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