Retrieve all API keys associated with your Hostkey account to review or manage access credentials.
Список всех API-ключей аккаунта (api_keys/list).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the scope (account-level), and openWorldHint is not explained. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations.
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?
A single, efficient sentence that clearly conveys the purpose. There is no extraneous information, and the endpoint path is included as a useful reference.
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 no-parameter read-only list, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers scope but does not mention the response format or explicitly differentiate from list_server_api_keys, which could lead to misuse. Given the sibling exists, this is a notable gap.
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, so the schema is empty and there is nothing to describe. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds no extra parameter information, which 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 action (list) and resource (API keys) and specifies scope as 'of the account', which distinguishes it from the server-specific sibling list_server_api_keys. However, it does not explicitly name the alternative or highlight the distinction, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus list_server_api_keys or get_api_key. The description simply states what it does without any context about selection criteria or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.