Skip to main content
Glama
wlmwwx

Jina AI Remote MCP Server

by wlmwwx

show_api_key

Retrieve the bearer token from MCP settings for debugging authentication in Jina AI's web tools and search capabilities.

Instructions

Return the bearer token from the Authorization header of the MCP settings, which is used to debug.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • Registers the 'show_api_key' tool with server.tool. Includes empty input schema, description, and an inline async handler function that fetches the bearer token from props and returns it as text content, or an error if not found.
    server.tool(
    	"show_api_key",
    	"Return the bearer token from the Authorization header of the MCP settings, which is used to debug.",
    	{},
    	async () => {
    		const props = getProps();
    		const token = props.bearerToken as string;
    		if (!token) {
    			return createErrorResponse("No bearer token found in request");
    		}
    		return {
    			content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: token }],
    		};
    	},
    );
  • Inline handler function for the 'show_api_key' tool. Retrieves the bearerToken from the current request props using getProps(), checks if it exists, and returns it as a text content item or an error response.
    async () => {
    	const props = getProps();
    	const token = props.bearerToken as string;
    	if (!token) {
    		return createErrorResponse("No bearer token found in request");
    	}
    	return {
    		content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: token }],
    	};
    },
  • Helper function createErrorResponse used by the show_api_key handler (and other tools) to return standardized error responses.
    const createErrorResponse = (message: string) => ({
    	content: [{ type: "text" as const, text: message }],
    	isError: true,
    });
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool returns a bearer token for debugging, but it doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as security implications, whether it exposes sensitive data, or any rate limits. This is a significant gap for a tool handling authentication tokens.

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, efficient sentence that states the purpose and usage context without waste. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating purpose from context.

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?

Given the complexity of handling authentication tokens, the description is incomplete. No annotations or output schema exist, and it fails to cover security risks, return format, or error handling. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for safe and effective use.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is acceptable here. Baseline is 4 since there are no parameters to compensate for, and the description doesn't contradict the schema.

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 ('Return') and the resource ('bearer token from the Authorization header of the MCP settings'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are unrelated to API key retrieval, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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?

The description includes a usage context ('used to debug'), which implies when to use it, but it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. No sibling tools are directly related, so no comparison is provided, leaving gaps in usage instructions.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/wlmwwx/jina-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server