kinsta_company_api-keysList all API keys associated with your Kinsta company to manage access credentials.
List all API keys for your Kinsta company.
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety and side-effect profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating the operation is a list, which is consistent with the annotations. No contradiction exists, but the description doesn't disclose additional traits like pagination, rate limits, or response format.
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, concise sentence that conveys the exact purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the key action and resource, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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 trivial list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient to inform an agent what it does. It doesn't specify the return format, but given the tool's simplicity and the annotations covering safety, nothing critical is missing. It could be slightly richer by hinting at what fields are returned, but it's adequate.
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, and schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already fully covers the (empty) parameter space.
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' and the resource 'API keys' scoped to the company, which is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling list tools like kinsta_company_users or kinsta_company_regions. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or contrast with other tools, so it doesn't earn the top score.
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 alternatives. The description doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or context that would help an agent decide between this and other list operations. For a simple list tool, the intent is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.