Flashpaper

create_secret_burn_link

Encrypt confidential API keys, passwords, or credentials into a self-destructing link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`agentName`	No	Name of the issuing AI agent (e.g. "Cursor AI Assistant", "Claude Desktop Agent").
`secretText`	Yes	The secret text, API key, or credential to encrypt.
`webhookUrl`	No	Optional HTTPS webhook URL to receive notification when secret is claimed/revealed.
`burnTrigger`	No	Burn condition or expiration duration.	1_view
`agentPurpose`	No	Purpose or context of secret generation (e.g. "Database Credential Provisioning").
`antiScreenshot`	No	Enable anti-screenshot spotlight lens protection.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJul 27, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the link self-destructs, but omits key behavioral details such as burn triggers, claim behavior, webhook notifications, and anti-screenshot protection. The schema exposes these options, but the description doesn't synthesize them.

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 with no filler. It communicates the action, target, and result efficiently; every word earns its place.

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?

With 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the one-line description is thin on operational context. It implies a link is returned but doesn't explicitly state the return value or how it fits into the claim/check/burn workflow. The schema covers parameters, but higher-level guidance is missing.

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%, so parameter descriptions already fully document each field. The description adds modest value by giving example secret types (API keys, passwords, credentials) and implying burnTrigger via 'self-destructing', but it doesn't clarify optional parameters like webhookUrl or antiScreenshot.

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 the specific verb 'Encrypt' and identifies the resource ('API keys, passwords, or credentials') and outcome ('self-destructing link'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that burn, check, or claim secrets.

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?

The description clearly implies this tool is for creating a secure self-destructing link, and sibling names make the division of labor obvious. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.

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

All Flashpaper tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

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.

Resources

Need Help?