Replaces the current API key immediately, returns a new key, saves it locally, and uses it for the rest of the session.
Rotate the API key. The old key stops working immediately; the new key is returned, saved locally, and used for the rest of this session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the destructive consequence (old key stops working immediately and irreversibly), the side effect (new key saved locally), and the session-scoped behavior of the new credential. These are exactly the traits an agent must know before invoking an irreversible operation.
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?
A single 27-word sentence (plus a short follow-on clause) that front-loads the action and then the consequences in order of impact: destruction first, then return value, then persistence. Nothing is wasted.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers the essentials: what happens to the old key, what comes back, and where it goes. It falls short only on recoverability and error/permission behavior, which an irreversible credential operation would ideally mention.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing the new key as returned rather than supplied.
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 ('Rotate the API key') with no ambiguity, and no sibling tool in the list touches key management, so there is no overlap to disambiguate.
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?
Usage is implied by the effect described (old key immediately invalidated), but the description never says when an agent should rotate versus simply call whoami/provision_account, nor any prerequisite or caution against rotating mid-task. No explicit when/when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.