check_secret_status
Check status of a Flashpaper secret vault without revealing or burning it.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vaultId | Yes | The vault UUID. |
Flashpaper
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation does not reveal or burn the secret, which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not mention return format, permissions, or other side effects.
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, focused sentence that states the action and key constraint without any fluff.
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 simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description clarifies the non-destructive nature, but it does not describe what the status output contains or any prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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 coverage is 100% with vaultId described as 'The vault UUID,' so the schema already provides full parameter information. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'check' with resource 'status of a Flashpaper secret vault' and explicitly disambiguates from siblings by stating 'without revealing or burning it,' which contrasts with burn_secret_immediately and claim_secret.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies the appropriate use case (inspecting status without destruction) via the 'without revealing or burning' clause, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so a clear context with no exclusions.
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.
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct operation: create, claim, burn, and check status. Although claim and burn both result in destruction, their contexts (deposited secret vs. own vault) are clearly separated by the descriptions.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb-first snake_case pattern (burn, check, claim, create). Minor variance in adverb/noun composition does not harm recognizability.
Tool Count5/5
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a focused one-time-secret service. Each tool covers a necessary part of the lifecycle without redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The lifecycle is fully covered: create, claim (read+consume), burn (destroy), and status check. No obvious missing operations for a one-time secret vault.