kinsta_auth_validateCheck if your Kinsta API key is valid and retrieve associated account details. Use this to confirm authentication before performing Kinsta operations.
Validate the current Kinsta API key. Returns account information if the key is valid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and open-world; the description adds the conditional return behavior (account info only if the key is valid). It does not state invalid-key error behavior, but for a read-only validation call this is a minor gap.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core action and result are front-loaded, making the description easy to scan and act on.
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 read-only validation call, the description provides the key operational details: what is being validated and what a successful result returns. Even without an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly, though invalid-key behavior is not explicitly described.
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 is empty, so there are no parameters to document. With zero parameters, the description does not need to add parameter details beyond what is already present.
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?
Description names a specific verb (validate), a specific resource (current Kinsta API key), and the expected outcome (account information when valid). No sibling tool shares exactly this purpose, so it is clearly distinguishable.
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?
Usage context is implied—call this when you need to confirm the API key is valid and receive account info—but there is no explicit when-to-use versus kinsta_ping or other connectivity checks. Adequate for a unique auth tool, but not fully explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.