Nife MCP Server

Add Git secret

add_git_secret

Store a Git personal access token (PAT) as a named secret so it can be used for private repository deployments. Pass the returned name as pat_secret_name in deploy_site or inspect_repository. The token value is never returned after this call.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "registry_type": "<registry_type>",
      "token": "<token>",
      "organization_id": "<organization_id>"
    },
    "name": "add_git_secret"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	A short label for this secret, e.g. 'my-github-pat'. Used as pat_secret_name in deploy_site.
`token`	Yes	The personal access token (PAT) value. Stored securely — never logged or returned.
`registry_type`	Yes	Git provider this token belongs to
`organization_id`	Yes	Organization to store the secret under (from list_organizations)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, open-world write. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the token is stored securely and 'never returned after this call,' so the agent knows the value is unrecoverable and must be captured elsewhere. It does not address duplicate-name behavior, 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?

Three tight sentences: what it does, how the output is consumed, and a critical security caveat. Nothing is padded and the most important constraint is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly focuses on the non-obvious facts: token irrecoverability and downstream consumption. It is nearly complete, missing only guidance on name collisions or whether an existing secret can be overwritten.

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 every parameter including the enum-constrained registry_type and the organization_id source (list_organizations) is already documented. The description's note that the name becomes pat_secret_name largely repeats what the 'name' property description already states, adding no new parameter-level meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Store a Git personal access token (PAT) as a named secret') plus the reason it exists (private repository deployments). This cleanly separates it from siblings like list_git_secrets and delete_git_secret without the agent needing to open a 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?

It gives a concrete downstream usage rule: pass the returned name as pat_secret_name in deploy_site or inspect_repository, which tells the agent when this tool matters in a workflow. It stops short of stating prerequisites such as when a secret must exist before a deploy fails, or what to do if a secret with the same name already exists.

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

All Nife MCP Server tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?