Lists all API tokens for the authenticated user in the current organization, including active and revoked tokens with prefixes only—no raw token values.
List all API tokens for the authenticated user within the current organization. Returns both active and revoked tokens sorted by creation date, newest first. The raw token value is never included — only the tokenPrefix for identification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Goes beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing content details an agent would otherwise have to guess: revoked tokens are included, ordering is newest-first by creation date, and the raw secret is never returned (only tokenPrefix). Pagination or result limits are not mentioned.
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?
Three short sentences, each front-loaded with new information (scope, contents/ordering, secret-safety). Nothing is repeated from the annotations or the schema.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so well (active + revoked, sorted, tokenPrefix). Only pagination/volume behavior is missing, a minor gap for a list tool.
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 no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies; the description correctly implies no filtering inputs are available.
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 ('List all API tokens') plus scope ('for the authenticated user within the current organization'), which is enough for an agent to distinguish it from api_keys_scopes and the oauth2_clients_* siblings without opening a schema.
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 name and the listing behavior, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' guidance, no mention of alternatives such as api_keys_scopes, and no prerequisites stated (e.g. admin role requirement).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.