Rotate an API key while preserving the credential ID and bindings. Get the new plaintext key once; the previous key remains valid for a short grace period.
Rotate an API key. Keeps the same Credentials credential_id (bindings stay valid). Plaintext returned once; previous hash remains valid for a short grace window.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses critical traits: plaintext is returned only once, the previous hash remains valid for a grace window, and the credential_id is preserved. These details go beyond the schema and genuinely help an agent handle the operation correctly (e.g., capturing the plaintext immediately).
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by essential behavioral caveats. No filler, every sentence earns its place. The structure leads with the action, then the critical nuances.
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 simple one-parameter tool without an output schema, the description covers the key operational details: the one-time plaintext return, the grace period, and bindings stability. It does not describe the exact return format, but that is not strictly required given the explicit mention of plaintext being returned.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explicitly describe key_id, but the tool name and purpose make it obvious that key_id identifies the key to rotate. The description adds no format or constraints, but for a single obvious parameter this is adequate.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource pair ('Rotate an API key') and immediately differentiates from sibling operations (create/update/delete) by noting that the same credential_id is kept and bindings stay valid. This clearly tells an agent what the tool does and how it differs from other API key operations.
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 implies a use case (rotate while preserving bindings) but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over delete+create or name alternatives. It provides context but no explicit exclusions; an agent must infer that this is the right choice when continuity of bindings matters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.