Retrieve all API keys in the Aeza account to review active credentials and support access management.
Get all API keys GET /api-keys
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "api_keys_get_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the HTTP route: it does not say whether secret key material is returned or masked, whether results are paginated or sorted, or what authorization is required for a security-sensitive listing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short fragments with the purpose front-loaded; nothing is padded or buried. The raw "GET /api-keys" route adds little for an agent but costs almost nothing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is minimally sufficient to call it. The notable gap is behavioral: for an API key listing, an agent cannot tell from the definition whether credential secrets appear in the response, which materially affects how the output should be handled.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter semantics are missing or misleading.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get all API keys"), making clear it is a full listing of key objects. The verb distinguishes it in spirit from api_keys_create and api_keys_edit, though it never names or contrasts them explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., auth/scope needed to enumerate keys), and no note about how results relate to api_keys_create or api_keys_edit. An agent can infer it is the listing endpoint only from the word "all".
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.