Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
writ-mcp

writ-mcp

Official
by withwrit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

writ_keys

Lists API key metadata for a tenant, returning key details without exposing raw keys.

Instructions

List API key metadata for the tenant (never raw keys).

Tool call template

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": "writ_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does 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 does disclose the most security-relevant trait — that raw key material is never returned, only metadata — which is genuinely useful, but it says nothing about read-only safety guarantees, ordering, result size, or whether disabled/revoked keys are included.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single short sentence with the resource and the important caveat both front-loaded. Nothing is padded and no sentence fails to earn its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and a zero-param tenant-scoped list is a simple tool, so the description is close to sufficient. The residual gap is scope detail — whose keys are listed and whether inactive keys appear — which a calling agent may still need to reason about.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered tenant-wide listing rather than suggesting options that do not exist.

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 pairs a specific verb ("List") with a specific resource ("API key metadata") and a scope ("for the tenant"), so an agent knows exactly what it returns. It stops short of naming a sibling such as writ_verify_token or writ_grant to disambiguate the key-related tools in the set.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read path for inspecting keys rather than minting or revoking them. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives, and no mention of prerequisites such as tenant context or permissions.

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