Skip to main content
Glama
ni-c

wikijs-mcp

by ni-c
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

List API keys

list_api_keys
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether API access is enabled and list all API keys with their expiry and revocation status. Since secrets are never returned, this provides visibility without exposing credentials.

Instructions

Lists the wiki’s API keys with their expiry and whether they are revoked, plus whether API access is switched on at all. Wiki.js stores only a truncated form of each key and never returns the secret, so nothing here can be used to authenticate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
truncatedNoPresent only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema",
+  "additionalProperties": true,
+  "properties": {
+    "truncated": {
+      "additionalProperties": true,
+      "description": "Present only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.",
+      "properties": {},
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the call as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful safety context: Wiki.js stores only a truncated key and never returns the secret, so nothing in the result can authenticate. This is valuable behavioral disclosure beyond the structured annotations.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and result fields, followed by a concise security caveat. There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter list operation with annotations and an output schema already present, the description covers everything else an agent needs: what is listed, included status fields, and the credential-safety caveat. No missing behavioral or usage detail remains.

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 schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The description appropriately focuses on what the response covers rather than inputs, earning the baseline for a no-parameter tool.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with the specific verb 'Lists' and the resource 'the wiki's API keys', then enumerates the exact fields returned: expiry, revoked status, and whether API access is on. This clearly distinguishes the tool from mutating siblings like revoke_api_key and set_api_state.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The read-only listing purpose and the mention of API-access state provide clear context for when an agent should call this tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but among siblings only revoke_api_key and set_api_state mutate API-key state, making the intended use evident.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools