Exepal

Secrets leak detector

scan_secrets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Secrets leak detector: finds API keys, tokens, private keys, seed phrases, JWTs and connection strings (AWS, GitHub, OpenAI, Anthropic, Stripe, Slack, Google and 30+ more) in text or a URL; masked findings with line numbers, optional redacted copy. Use before logging, committing, pasting, summarising or sending text that might hold credentials: configs, .env files, logs, diffs, tool output. Pass text or url. Returns found, count, severity (high, medium, low or none), findings[] {type e.g. aws-access-key-id or github-token, provider, severity, confidence, masked, line, column}, byProvider counts, summary and, with redact: true, the same text with each secret replaced by [REDACTED:type]. Nothing is stored. Price: $0.002 per call from Exepal credit; not charged if the call fails. Includes free daily calls.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "scan_secrets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Public URL to fetch and scan instead of text
`text`	No	Text to scan: a config, log, diff, prompt, document or tool output (up to 2,000,000 characters)
`redact`	No	Also return `redacted`: the text with every secret replaced by [REDACTED:type] (default false)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No	Present when a url was fetched
`count`	No
`found`	No
`stats`	No
`status`	No
`summary`	No
`finalUrl`	No
`findings`	No	In document order, up to 100
`redacted`	No	The input with every secret replaced by [REDACTED:type]; only with redact: true
`severity`	No	high, medium, low or none
`byProvider`	No	Count per provider

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / url / format
```
Added value: +"uri"
```
AddedNov 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, and the description adds traits annotations cannot convey: nothing is stored, findings are masked, redaction is opt-in, and there is a per-call price with no charge on failure plus free daily calls. Cost and data-retention disclosure are exactly the kind of behavior an agent needs before choosing this tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by usage, then inputs, then the return shape and pricing. It is dense but every block is functional; the redaction sentence duplicates the schema slightly, which is the only real trimming opportunity.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Although an output schema exists, the description still spells out found, count, severity levels, findings[] fields, byProvider and the redacted variant, so an agent knows how to interpret results. Combined with cost, retention and input limits, nothing needed to call this correctly 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% and each of the three parameters already carries a description, including the 2,000,000 character limit and the redaction format. The description's 'Pass text or url' and redact explanation restate what the schema already says, adding little beyond a hint that one input source is used at a time.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (detects secrets in text or a URL) and enumerates exactly what it finds: API keys, tokens, private keys, seed phrases, JWTs, connection strings, with named providers. That scope lets an agent distinguish it from siblings like scan_pii or scan_injection without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete trigger points: before logging, committing, pasting, summarising or sending text that might hold credentials, and names the input categories (configs, .env, logs, diffs, tool output). It does not explicitly route to or exclude the sibling scanners (scan_pii, scan_injection), so the when-not and alternative guidance is left implicit.

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

All Exepal 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?