AgentPlaybooks

Read through a secret

use_secret

Read-onlyIdempotent

Send a GET or HEAD request with a secret injected as a header, and return the response.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "playbook_id": "<playbook_id>",
      "secret_name": "<secret_name>",
      "url": "<url>"
    },
    "name": "use_secret"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The URL to send the HTTP request to
`method`	No	HTTP method (default: GET). For POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE use use_secret_write.
`timeout_ms`	No	Request timeout in milliseconds (default: 30000, max: 60000)
`header_name`	No	Header name to inject the secret into (default: Authorization)
`playbook_id`	Yes	UUID or GUID of the target playbook
`secret_name`	Yes	Name of the secret to use (e.g. OPENAI_API_KEY)
`extra_headers`	No	Additional headers (e.g. {"Accept": "application/json"})
`header_prefix`	No	Prefix before the secret value (default: 'Bearer '). Use empty string for raw value.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 8, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description has a lower burden. The description adds that the secret is injected as a header and that the response is returned, but it omits important context such as default header/prefix behavior and the external exposure implications of sending a secret to an arbitrary URL.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently communicates the request method, secret injection, and return behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is complex (8 parameters, secret injection, external network access) and lacks an output schema, but the schema and annotations are rich. The description states the core behavior and return value, yet it omits explicit usage routing to `use_secret_write` and does not highlight the security-sensitive nature of sending a secret to a target URL.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains all 8 parameters, including defaults for method, timeout, header name, and header prefix. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (send) and resource (GET or HEAD request with a secret header) and states that it returns the response. It does not mention the sibling `use_secret_write` or explicitly distinguish read-only secret use from other secret operations, so it is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation in the description itself.

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 gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives. The schema notes that POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE should use `use_secret_write`, but that crucial routing guidance is absent from the description.

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

All AgentPlaybooks tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?