Add Key info endpoint object permission data

[Sameerlite]

Relevant issues

Fixed #20323

Pre-Submission checklist

Please complete all items before asking a LiteLLM maintainer to review your PR

• I have Added testing in the tests/litellm/ directory, Adding at least 1 test is a hard requirement - see details
• My PR passes all unit tests on make test-unit
• My PR's scope is as isolated as possible, it only solves 1 specific problem

CI (LiteLLM team)

CI status guideline:

• 50-55 passing tests: main is stable with minor issues.
• 45-49 passing tests: acceptable but needs attention
• <= 40 passing tests: unstable; be careful with your merges and assess the risk.

• Branch creation CI run
  Link:

• CI run for the last commit
  Link:

• Merge / cherry-pick CI run
  Links:

Type

🆕 New Feature
🐛 Bug Fix
🧹 Refactoring
📖 Documentation
🚄 Infrastructure
✅ Test

Changes

[vercel]

The latest updates on your projects. Learn more about Vercel for GitHub.

Project	Deployment	Actions	Updated (UTC)
litellm	Ready	Preview, Comment	Feb 4, 2026 9:11am

[greptile-apps]

Greptile Overview

Greptile Summary

Enhanced the /key/info endpoint to return complete object_permission data when object_permission_id is set on a key. Previously only the ID was returned, now the full object with fields like mcp_access_groups, mcp_servers, vector_stores, and agents is included.

Key Changes:

• Added call to attach_object_permission_to_dict helper function in info_key_fn after converting key info to dict
• Reuses existing well-tested helper function that queries the litellm_objectpermissiontable and attaches the result
• Added comprehensive test case test_key_info_returns_object_permission verifying the object_permission is correctly fetched and included in response
• Consistent with existing pattern used in other endpoints (e.g., line 4098 in the same file)

Confidence Score: 5/5

• This PR is safe to merge with minimal risk
• The change is minimal, well-tested, and follows existing patterns in the codebase. It reuses a well-tested helper function that already has comprehensive test coverage. The implementation adds a database query, but only to the /key/info endpoint which is not a critical request path (it's a management endpoint for retrieving key information, not part of the LLM request flow). The test is thorough and verifies the expected behavior.
• No files require special attention

Important Files Changed

Filename	Overview
litellm/proxy/management_endpoints/key_management_endpoints.py	Added object_permission data attachment to /key/info endpoint response by calling existing helper function
tests/test_litellm/proxy/management_endpoints/test_key_management_endpoints.py	Added comprehensive test verifying object_permission is correctly returned in /key/info response

Sequence Diagram

sequenceDiagram
    participant Client
    participant InfoKeyFn as info_key_fn
    participant Prisma as prisma_client
    participant AttachHelper as attach_object_permission_to_dict
    
    Client->>InfoKeyFn: GET /key/info with key param
    InfoKeyFn->>Prisma: find_unique(token, include litellm_budget_table)
    Prisma-->>InfoKeyFn: key_info with object_permission_id
    InfoKeyFn->>InfoKeyFn: Convert to dict and remove token
    InfoKeyFn->>AttachHelper: Pass key_info dict and prisma_client
    AttachHelper->>AttachHelper: Check if object_permission_id exists
    AttachHelper->>Prisma: find_unique(object_permission_id)
    Prisma-->>AttachHelper: object_permission record
    AttachHelper->>AttachHelper: Convert to dict and attach
    AttachHelper-->>InfoKeyFn: key_info with object_permission field
    InfoKeyFn-->>Client: Response with key info including object_permission

Loading

[greptile-apps]

_{2 files reviewed, no comments}

_{Edit Code Review Agent Settings | Greptile}