Mint a run or sub API key from an account key (REST POST /api/keys). Requires account tp_ key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| name | No | ||
| tools | No | ||
| opBudget | No | ||
| namespaces | No | ||
| ttlSeconds | No | ||
| wipeOnExpire | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not disclose behavioral side effects beyond stating that it mints a key. It doesn't mention what the tool returns, whether it consumes quota, if it's reversible, or any failure modes. Given there are no annotations to cover safety or side effects, the description carries the full burden and falls short.
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?
The description is a single, compact sentence that front-loads the core action ('Mint a run or sub API key') and immediately follows with the key prerequisite. Every word earns its place; there is no fluff or redundancy.
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 tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks explanations of all parameters, differences between run and sub keys, what the response contains, and any constraints (e.g., ttl, permissions). Even with the prerequisite stated, an agent would struggle to call the tool correctly without further documentation.
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?
The schema has 7 parameters with zero description coverage. The description only implies the 'kind' parameter (run/sub) but provides no explanation for name, tools, opBudget, namespaces, ttlSeconds, or wipeOnExpire. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 uses the specific verb 'mint' with the resource 'API key', and clearly states it creates either run or sub keys. It also includes the REST endpoint (POST /api/keys), which unambiguously identifies the operation. This clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from any potential sibling by describing its exact output.
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 mentions a prerequisite ('Requires account tp_ key'), which is important but doesn't provide guidance on when to choose run vs sub keys or when not to use this tool. Since no sibling tools create keys, explicit alternatives aren't necessary, but the lack of differentiation between run and sub keys leaves some usage ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools are named as resource+action and target distinct surfaces (inbox, kvp, files, billing), so an agent can generally select the right tool. A few pairs like budget_get vs usage_get and inbox_message_get vs inbox_message_raw have adjacent purposes, but their descriptions mostly clear up the boundary.
The predominant convention is snake_case noun_verb, e.g. kvp_get, inbox_create, files_list. Minor deviations like inspect_storage (verb-noun) and bare noun names such as billing_portal and files_types slightly break the pattern.
With 35 tools, the server is well above the 25+ threshold and bundles many subdomains—billing, KVP, inbox, RAG, files, keys, support—into one surface. It would be more coherent as separate servers or with a significantly trimmed inbox tool set.
Core workflows are mostly covered: inbox lifecycle, webhooks, KVP CRUD, billing, and usage are solid. However file upload has no corresponding delete/remove tool, and keys have create but no list/revoke, leaving noticeable lifecycle gaps.