Apiosk MCP Server

apiosk_list_wallet_api_keys

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all API keys and connect tokens associated with a managed wallet ID to review active credentials and access permissions.

Instructions

List API keys / connect tokens for a managed wallet.

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": {
      "wallet_id": "<wallet_id>"
    },
    "name": "apiosk_list_wallet_api_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`wallet_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.8.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so no contradiction exists. The description adds context by scoping to managed wallets and noting 'connect tokens' as equivalent to API keys, but it does not describe pagination, ordering, or other behavioral details beyond the 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the low complexity and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is nearly complete for a simple read-only list operation. The only minor gap is that 'managed wallet' is not defined, but this is unlikely to block correct invocation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented wallet_id parameter. It partially does by indicating the parameter refers to a managed wallet, but it does not explain the expected format or how the ID is obtained. The single self-named parameter and the phrase 'managed wallet' provide only minimal additional meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('API keys / connect tokens'), and a scope ('for a managed wallet'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create/update/delete wallet API keys without needing to inspect their schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The intended use is implied: call this when you need to list existing API keys or connect tokens for a wallet. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or which sibling tool to choose for creating, updating, or deleting keys, so the guidance is only implicit.

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

Deploy Server