Get details about a specific API token
Get details about a specific API token
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| admin_id | No | Owning user ID (optional; looked up when omitted) | |
| token_id | Yes | API token ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.2.1Input schema / properties / admin_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Owning user ID (optional; looked up when omitted)",
+ "type": "integer"
+}v4.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint. The description adds nothing beyond them — notably it doesn't say whether the token secret/value is returned, how it's masked, or what authorization is needed to view another user's token. Given the sensitivity of credential data, this is a real gap.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient but arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise — there is room to add routing and return-value context at little cost.
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?
A simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, so the description is minimally adequate. Missing is any indication of what 'details' means for a credential object — whether the secret is exposed — which matters for an agent deciding whether to call it.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for token_id and admin_id (including the fallback lookup behavior), so the schema carries the load. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline 3 for well-documented schemas.
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?
Specific verb ('Get') plus specific resource ('details about a specific API token') with singular scope. However, it never names or contrasts with the sibling get_api_tokens, so the singular/plural distinction relies on the reader noticing the name difference.
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?
The phrase 'a specific API token' implicitly signals single-token retrieval versus a listing tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. Usage must be inferred from the name and sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.