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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond those annotations by specifying that secrets are 'masked' and that only 'metadata' is returned, not raw secret values.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to identifying the operation, resource, and scope.
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?
Annotations and the presence of an output schema cover safety and return shape, and the core purpose is clear. However, the meaning of the optional 'key' parameter is missing, which is a meaningful gap given the small parameter surface.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only restates project and environment without explaining their semantics and entirely omits the optional 'key' parameter. An agent cannot infer what 'key' does or when to provide it.
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 names a specific verb (List), a concrete resource (masked deployment secret metadata), and the scope (project environment). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like ci_read_build_logs or ci_retry_build, leaving no doubt about what the tool operates on.
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 provides clear scope ('for a project environment') but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusion criteria. Usage context is implied by the resource type rather than stated directly.
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.