Skip to main content
Glama
kajirita2002

honeycomb-mcp-server

honeycomb_auth

Authenticate API keys and retrieve authentication details to ensure secure access within the honeycomb-mcp-server environment.

Instructions

Get authentication information and validate API key

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Core handler function for honeycomb_auth tool. Performs GET request to Honeycomb /auth endpoint to validate API key and retrieve auth info.
    async auth(): Promise<any> {
      const response = await fetch(`${this.baseUrl}/auth`, {
        method: "GET",
        headers: this.headers,
      });
    
      if (!response.ok) {
        throw new Error(`Failed to authenticate: ${response.statusText}`);
      }
    
      return await response.json();
    }
  • MCP tool dispatch handler case for honeycomb_auth, calls client.auth() and formats response.
    case "honeycomb_auth": {
      const response = await client.auth();
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(response) }],
      };
    }
  • Tool schema definition for honeycomb_auth with empty input schema (no parameters required).
    const authTool: Tool = {
      name: "honeycomb_auth",
      description: "API Keys have various scopes permissions and belong to a specific Team or Environment. Use this to validate authentication for a key, to determine what authorizations have been granted to a key, and to determine the Team and Environment that a key belongs to.",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {},
      },
    };
  • index.ts:785-785 (registration)
    Registration of honeycomb_auth tool in the list of available tools returned by ListToolsRequest.
    authTool,
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'validate API key' which implies a read-only check, but doesn't specify what authentication information is returned, whether it includes permissions or rate limits, or what happens on validation failure. This leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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?

The description is perfectly concise with just 7 words that directly state the tool's function. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant or unnecessary information. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For an authentication tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'authentication information' includes, what format it returns, or what validation entails. Given the importance of authentication in API workflows and the lack of structured output documentation, this leaves too many unanswered questions.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it doesn't need to compensate for any schema gaps.

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 with specific verbs ('Get authentication information' and 'validate API key'), making it distinct from sibling tools that perform CRUD operations on Honeycomb resources. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from hypothetical authentication alternatives beyond the sibling list provided.

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, prerequisites, or context for invocation. It lacks explicit instructions on when authentication validation is needed in the workflow, which is a significant gap for an authentication-related tool.

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

Related 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/kajirita2002/honeycomb-mcp-server'

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