Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
@takeokunn/metabase-mcp

@takeokunn/metabase-mcp

by takeokunn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

regenerate_api_key

Regenerate a Metabase API key to receive a new secret by specifying the API key ID.

Instructions

Regenerate an API key in Metabase

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "input": "<input>"
    },
    "name": "regenerate_api_key"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description lacks disclosure of destructive behavior (old key becomes invalid) or any side effects. Without annotations, the agent cannot assess the risk of this mutation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, very concise. However, it lacks structure and could benefit from bullet points or clearer phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description does not explain what happens after regeneration (e.g., returns new key) or any required permissions. For a mutating tool with no output schema, more context is essential.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description provides no additional meaning for the 'id' parameter. The agent gets no help understanding what ID to provide or how it is used.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (regenerate) and resource (API key), but does not elaborate on what regeneration entails, such as revoking the old key and creating a new one. This is still specific enough to distinguish from create_api_key and update_api_key.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus create_api_key or update_api_key. It does not mention prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent without decision support.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools