List a repository's workflow secrets — NAMES ONLY, with created/updated times; values are never returned. Use it to check that a secret such as CRON_SECRET exists before a workflow needs it. Needs admin access to the repository and 'repo' scope. Returns {repository, total_count, secrets:[{name, created_at, updated_at}]}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| repo | Yes | Repo name | |
| owner | Yes | Repo owner — username or organisation slug |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only safety profile, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses that secret values are never returned, that only names and timestamps come back, and that admin access plus 'repo' scope are required. It even spells out the response shape, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three tightly packed sentences: the key constraint (NAMES ONLY) is front-loaded, then usage, then prerequisites and return shape. No filler sentences.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing pieces: the return shape, the fact that values are excluded, and the auth/scope requirements. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (owner and repo both documented), so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no per-parameter syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List a repository's workflow secrets') and immediately scopes it with 'NAMES ONLY, with created/updated times; values are never returned.' This distinguishes it cleanly from write-oriented siblings like gluecron_set_repo_secret and from token-listing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly names the use case ('check that a secret such as CRON_SECRET exists before a workflow needs it') and states prerequisites ('admin access to the repository and repo scope'). It does not explicitly route to an alternative tool, but the surrounding sibling set is broad and no single obvious alternative applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
