Retrieve the total number of API keys in your Metabase instance to monitor access credentials.
Get the count of all API keys in Metabase
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": "count_api_keys"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the tool returns the count of all API keys, but does not disclose any side effects, authentication requirements, or response format. The description is straightforward but minimal for a simple read 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?
One concise sentence front-loads the purpose with no waste. Perfectly efficient.
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?
While the tool is simple, without an output schema the description should specify the return format. It says 'count' but not whether it's an integer or JSON object. Additionally, given the presence of list_api_keys, a brief note on when to use count vs list would improve completeness.
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 input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, which is acceptable as there are no parameters to document. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
Clearly states the tool counts all API keys in Metabase. The verb 'Get' and resource 'count of all API keys' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings like list_api_keys which returns the list, not just the count.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_api_keys. The description implies it's for getting a count, but does not provide when-not-to-use or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.