Skip to main content
Glama
jamesbrink

MCP Server for Coroot

list_api_keys

Retrieve all API keys with metadata for a specific project in Coroot's observability platform, excluding secret values for security.

Instructions

List all API keys for a project.

Returns all API keys with their metadata (but not the secret values).

Args: project_id: Project ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • MCP tool handler registration for 'list_api_keys'. This is the entrypoint function decorated with @mcp.tool() that handles the tool execution by calling the implementation.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def list_api_keys(project_id: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """List all API keys for a project.
    
        Returns all API keys with their metadata (but not the secret values).
    
        Args:
            project_id: Project ID
        """
        return await list_api_keys_impl(project_id)  # type: ignore[no-any-return]
  • Server-side wrapper implementation that calls CorootClient.list_api_keys and formats the response with success indicator.
    async def list_api_keys_impl(project_id: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """List API keys."""
        keys = await get_client().list_api_keys(project_id)
        return {
            "success": True,
            "api_keys": keys,
        }
  • Core handler logic in CorootClient that performs the HTTP GET request to the Coroot API endpoint /api/project/{project_id}/api_keys to fetch the list of API keys.
    async def list_api_keys(self, project_id: str) -> dict[str, Any]:
        """List API keys for a project.
    
        Args:
            project_id: Project ID.
    
        Returns:
            List of API keys.
        """
        response = await self._request("GET", f"/api/project/{project_id}/api_keys")
        data: dict[str, Any] = response.json()
        return data
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns metadata but not secret values, which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling, leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.

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?

The description is well-structured and concise, with three sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, output behavior, and parameter. There's no unnecessary information, and it's front-loaded with the main functionality, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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?

Given that there is an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basics but lacks depth in usage guidelines and behavioral details, making it adequate but not fully comprehensive for a tool that interacts with sensitive data like API keys.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that explains the 'project_id' parameter, adding meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. However, it doesn't provide examples, format details, or constraints for the parameter, limiting its helpfulness. With one parameter and some explanation, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all API keys for a project.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('API keys for a project'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_application' or 'list_projects', which slightly reduces clarity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing project, or compare it to related tools like 'create_api_key' or 'delete_api_key'. Without this context, users may struggle to determine the appropriate usage scenario.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jamesbrink/mcp-coroot'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server