Skip to main content
Glama

Save keys to an agent's vault

save_secrets
Destructive

Saves API keys or tokens to an agent's vault as NAME: value pairs. They are encrypted, can't be read back, and reach the agent within seconds.

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": {
      "agent_id": "<agent_id>",
      "vars": "<vars>"
    },
    "name": "save_secrets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
varsYese.g. {"GITHUB_TOKEN": "github_pat_…"}
agent_idYesThe agent id, like agt_j8bbg89jv5 (get_account lists them).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavior beyond the annotations: values are encrypted, cannot be read back (irreversible write-only store), and propagate to the agent 'within seconds'. That goes past destructiveHint=true by telling the agent the data is unrecoverable and when it takes effect. It stays silent on overwrite semantics for an existing key, which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loading the action and then the three facts that affect agent behavior (encryption, irreversibility, latency). Nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a two-parameter write with full schema coverage and no output schema, this covers what the agent most needs to know before writing: secrecy, irreversibility, and timing. Only the behavior when a key with the same name already exists is left unstated.

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 documents both parameters, including the agt_ pattern and an example vars object. The description's 'NAME: value pairs' phrasing reinforces the vars shape but adds no format details the schema lacks.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Saves API keys or tokens to an agent's vault') plus the shape of the payload ('NAME: value pairs'). It does not distinguish itself from a plausible sibling like connect_model_key, so sibling differentiation is left to the reader.

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 payload description (API keys or tokens), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of an alternative tool for other kinds of credentials.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources