List masked deployment secret metadata for a project environment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| environment | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | ||
| secrets | Yes | ||
| environment | Yes | ||
| observed_at | Yes | ||
| values_exposed | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "environment": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "observed_at": {
+ "format": "date-time",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "project": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "secrets": {
+ "items": {
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "values_exposed": {
+ "const": false,
+ "type": "boolean"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "project",
+ "environment",
+ "secrets",
+ "values_exposed",
+ "observed_at"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly says 'masked' and 'metadata,' which tells an agent that secret values are not exposed and that this is a read-only listing operation. It does not cover authorization or error behavior, but the security-relevant trait is clearly disclosed.
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?
The description is a single seven-word sentence with no filler. The verb and core scope are front-loaded, making it instantly scannable for an agent.
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 simple read/list operation, the description provides action, resource, and scope. The output schema supplies return-shape details, so the description does not need to explain them. It lacks explicit guidance on the optional 'key' parameter, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The phrase 'for a project environment' gives semantic meaning to the required 'project' and 'environment' parametersainer. However, with 0% schema description coverage, the optional 'key' parameter is not mentioned at all, so the description only partially compensates for the missing schema details.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') plus a precise resource ('masked deployment secret metadata') scoped to 'a project environment.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools focused on build status, logs, repositories, or deploy triggers.
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?
The description implies when the tool should be used: when you need deployment secret metadata for a project environment. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving differentiation from sibling read tools to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.