AgentPlaybooks

Write through a secret

use_secret_write

Destructive

Send a POST, PUT, PATCH or DELETE 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_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	The URL to send the HTTP request to
`body`	No	JSON request body (for POST/PUT/PATCH)
`method`	No	HTTP method (default: POST). For GET/HEAD use use_secret.
`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. DEPLOY_API_KEY)
`extra_headers`	No	Additional headers (e.g. {"Content-Type": "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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=false, so the risk profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful trait that a secret is injected into a header and that the raw response is returned, but says nothing about egress targets, credential handling, or failure behavior beyond what annotations imply.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering the methods, the secret-injection mechanism, and the return value, with no redundant wording. Nothing in it could be trimmed without losing information.

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?

For a 9-parameter, destructive, open-world write tool with no output schema, the description covers the core mechanic and the return value, and the schema plus annotations carry most of the remaining burden. It still leaves gaps around secret scoping, side effects on the target system, and error outcomes that an agent invoking an outbound write would benefit from knowing.

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 every parameter (header_name, header_prefix, timeout_ms, body, extra_headers) is already documented in structured fields. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a fully annotated schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: send a POST/PUT/PATCH/DELETE request with a secret injected as a header and return the response. The enumerated methods implicitly separate it from the read-only sibling use_secret, but the description never names that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the method list — this is the tool for mutating HTTP calls with a secret. However, the description itself offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance and no pointer to use_secret for GET/HEAD; that routing hint exists only inside the method parameter's schema text.

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?