Modify a key's name or remark. Use to rename or annotate keys for better organization in keygenix-mcp.
Update a key's name or remark.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | New name (max 32 chars) | |
| remark | No | New remark (max 1024 chars) | |
| keyCode | Yes | The key code to update |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool mutates a key's name/remark but omits permissions required, whether changes are reversible, whether keyCode or key material is affected, and what the response looks like — a meaningful gap for a mutation tool.
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 short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and free of padding. It is efficient, though its brevity contributes to the behavioral gaps noted elsewhere.
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 low-complexity update tool with fully documented parameters and no output schema, the stated scope is adequate. However, with zero annotations and no mention of permissions or side effects, the description leaves mutation semantics unstated.
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 description coverage is 100% (name max 32 chars, remark max 1024 chars, keyCode documented), so the schema already does the heavy lifting. The description names the same two fields but adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond them; baseline 3 applies.
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 (update) and resource (a key) plus the two mutable fields (name, remark), so an agent can tell it apart from get_key, list_keys or create_key. It is clear, but it makes no explicit sibling differentiation (e.g. that it does not rotate key material or change keyCode).
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 description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and never names an alternative tool. An agent must infer that this is the tool to reach for when renaming a key versus get_key or create_key.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.