Skip to main content
Glama

Create a Dagon API key

dagon_create_key

Create a new Dagon Inference account key with a custom label and receive its secret once for secure storage as an API key. Use it to authenticate requests to uncensored LLM models.

Instructions

Create a new Dagon account key (POST /v1/keys). The secret is shown only once: store it securely (e.g. as DAGON_API_KEY) and never paste it into shared chats or files under version control.

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": "dagon_create_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoLabel for the key, up to 80 characters.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, open-world write, so the description is not obliged to restate that. It does add meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: the secret is returned only once and must be stored securely, which directly shapes how the agent should handle the result. It stops short of noting whether repeated calls stack up new keys or what else is returned.

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 sentences: the first front-loads the action and endpoint, the second delivers the one piece of operational guidance that matters. Nothing is redundant and the critical warning is not buried.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials, including the one-time secret that a caller must capture. It is slightly incomplete in not indicating what other fields (key id, name, timestamps) come back, which matters given the absence of an output schema.

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

Parameters3/5

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

With 100% schema description coverage, the single `name` parameter (a label up to 80 characters) is already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Create a new Dagon account key") and even names the underlying endpoint (POST /v1/keys). No sibling in the provided list creates keys, so the operation is unambiguous without needing explicit differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb "create" — there is no statement of when an agent should mint a new key versus reusing an existing one, nor any prerequisites or limits on key creation. Since no sibling offers an alternative path, the gap is mild but real.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.