keyshade-mcp

Official

by keyshade-xyz

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

Local

update_project

Modify project details such as name, description, access level, private key storage, and key pair regeneration.

Instructions

Updates a project

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>"
    },
    "name": "update_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New project name
`privateKey`	No	Private key if storePrivateKey is true
`accessLevel`	No	Project access level
`description`	No	New project description
`projectSlug`	Yes	Project slug to update
`storePrivateKey`	No	Whether to store private key
`regenerateKeyPair`	No	Whether to regenerate key pair

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Updates' implies mutation, but no details are given about side effects, required permissions, or reversibility. The description provides minimal behavioral context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise at one sentence, but it is under-specified. It conveys the basic action without earning its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The description is completely inadequate for a tool with 7 parameters and no output schema. It fails to explain return values, required fields, or behavioral context. The tool's complexity demands a much richer description.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with all 7 parameters described in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Updates a project' clearly identifies the action and resource, but it lacks specificity about what aspects of the project are updated. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like update_workspace or update_secret, which also perform updates on different resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_workspace or update_variable. There are no prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions mentioned.

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