diff --git a/server/cmd/main.go b/server/cmd/main.go
index e2325ff..acb7991 100644
--- a/server/cmd/main.go
+++ b/server/cmd/main.go
@@ -360,9 +360,27 @@ func boolEnv(key string) bool {
 }
 
 // serverTouchingRoutes restricts AssertServerScopeMapComplete to routes whose
-// pattern names server-derived data — "server", "console" or
-// "workflows/:id/run" — rather than every routeScopes entry, so unrelated
-// routes are never swept in and boot never fails for no reason.
+// pattern names server-derived data — "server", ":serverId", "console" or
+// "assign", or the exact "workflows/:id/run" — rather than every routeScopes
+// entry, so unrelated routes are never swept in and boot never fails for no
+// reason. ":serverId" and "assign" were added after POST /api/keys/:id/assign
+// turned out to resolve a named server (in its request body, not its path)
+// with no scope check and no entry in serverScopedRoutes at all — the
+// original three-way filter never saw it because nothing in its path pattern
+// said "server".
+//
+// A substring filter is the weak part of this design: it only catches a route
+// whose *path* names a server, and a route can act on a server named in its
+// body, a query parameter, or an ID a handler derives some other way, with a
+// path that says nothing about it — as the keys/assign route did. Each time
+// that happens the fix is another substring added here, which finds this
+// class of gap one instance late rather than by construction. The stronger
+// design would invert the model: every /api route declares itself in
+// serverScopedRoutes (or an adjacent map), with an explicit exemption list
+// for the handful that genuinely act on nothing server-scoped, so a new route
+// is checked by default rather than only if its path happens to match a
+// pattern someone thought to add. That inversion is a larger change than
+// this filter widening and is left as a follow-up, not done here.
 func serverTouchingRoutes(r *gin.Engine) []string {
 	var out []string
 	for _, route := range r.Routes() {
@@ -370,7 +388,9 @@ func serverTouchingRoutes(r *gin.Engine) []string {
 			continue
 		}
 		if strings.Contains(route.Path, "server") ||
+			strings.Contains(route.Path, ":serverId") ||
 			strings.Contains(route.Path, "console") ||
+			strings.Contains(route.Path, "assign") ||
 			route.Path == "/api/workflows/:id/run" {
 			out = append(out, route.Method+" "+route.Path)
 		}
diff --git a/server/internal/api/handlers.go b/server/internal/api/handlers.go
index 3e2f153..aebab55 100644
--- a/server/internal/api/handlers.go
+++ b/server/internal/api/handlers.go
@@ -573,7 +573,22 @@ func getKey(c *gin.Context) {
 		return
 	}
 
-	assignments, _ := services.GetAssignmentsWithServers(auth.InstanceID(c), id)
+	all, _ := services.GetAssignmentsWithServers(auth.InstanceID(c), id)
+
+	// A tag-restricted token may legitimately hold a key that is also
+	// assigned to a server outside its restriction — the key itself is
+	// still returned above. Only the assignment list is filtered, and
+	// silently: an assignment whose Server is nil or out of scope is
+	// dropped rather than kept with the hostname redacted, so the response
+	// gives no signal — not even a count — of what was removed.
+	scope := auth.ServerScope(c)
+	assignments := make([]services.AssignmentWithServer, 0, len(all))
+	for _, a := range all {
+		if a.Server != nil && !services.ServerInTokenScope(*a.Server, scope) {
+			continue
+		}
+		assignments = append(assignments, a)
+	}
 
 	c.JSON(http.StatusOK, KeyDetailResponse{
 		Key:         key,
diff --git a/server/internal/api/serverscope.go b/server/internal/api/serverscope.go
index d58885f..9daf29c 100644
--- a/server/internal/api/serverscope.go
+++ b/server/internal/api/serverscope.go
@@ -53,13 +53,25 @@ var serverScopedRoutes = map[string]bool{
 	// assignKey resolves body.ServerID through GetServerScoped before calling
 	// services.AssignKey, which itself uses the unscoped GetServer — so a
 	// restricted token can no longer assign a key to a server outside its
-	// scope by naming it in the request body. This route's path carries
-	// neither "server" nor "console", so it is not swept in by
-	// serverTouchingRoutes and this entry is not boot-enforced; it is kept
-	// here anyway as the record of a considered decision, matching its
-	// sibling revoke route.
+	// scope by naming it in the request body. serverTouchingRoutes in
+	// cmd/main.go now matches on "assign" as well as "server", so this entry
+	// is boot-enforced like its sibling revoke route.
 	"POST /api/keys/:id/assign": true,
 
+	// getKey filters services.GetAssignmentsWithServers' result down to
+	// assignments whose server passes services.ServerInTokenScope(*, before
+	// returning it, so a restricted token cannot learn the hostname of an
+	// out-of-scope server through a key it happens to also hold there. The
+	// key document itself is still returned unfiltered — a token restricted
+	// to staging may legitimately hold a key that is also assigned in prod,
+	// and only the assignment list, not the key's existence, is the leak
+	// this closes. This route's path carries none of "server", ":serverId",
+	// "console" or "assign", so it is not swept in by serverTouchingRoutes
+	// and this entry is not boot-enforced — kept anyway as the record of a
+	// considered decision, same as the assign/revoke routes above before
+	// their substrings were added to the filter.
+	"GET /api/keys/:id": true,
+
 	// Creating a server has no server to filter yet.
 	"POST /api/servers": false,
 	// The agent's own enrolment routes authenticate as the agent, not as a
@@ -77,10 +89,11 @@ var serverScopedRoutes = map[string]bool{
 }
 
 // POST/GET /api/mcp is deliberately absent from this map. main.go's
-// serverTouchingRoutes only feeds in routes whose path contains "server" or
-// "console" (or the one named workflow-run exception), and /api/mcp matches
-// none of those, so it is never presented to AssertServerScopeMapComplete —
-// there is nothing to declare true or false here. That is the right outcome:
+// serverTouchingRoutes only feeds in routes whose path contains "server",
+// ":serverId", "console" or "assign" (or the one named workflow-run
+// exception), and /api/mcp matches none of those, so it is never presented to
+// AssertServerScopeMapComplete — there is nothing to declare true or false
+// here. That is the right outcome:
 // the single MCP route fronts many tools of very different shapes, several of
 // which touch no server data at all, so a route-level entry could not say
 // anything meaningful about tag scoping. Each tool that does read or act on