seekrit — secrets for agents

delete_branch

DestructiveIdempotent

Tear down an ephemeral branch config and every value it overrode. The parent environment is untouched — only the branch's own overrides go — which makes this the routine cleanup when a PR merges. Irreversible; creating a branch mints a data key, so create_branch stays on the local crypto plane. Find the slug with list_branches. Returns { ok, branch }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app`	Yes	Application slug or id, as returned by list_apps (e.g. "storefront").
`org`	No	Organization slug or id. Omit it when the credential can reach exactly one org — that org is used automatically. With several, the error names every slug you may pass; list them yourself with list_orgs.
`branch`	Yes	Branch slug or id within the application, as returned by list_branches.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

It discloses the destructive scope ('every value it overrode', 'parent environment is untouched') and warns that the operation is irreversible, going beyond the destructiveHint annotation. It also states the return shape '{ ok, branch }', though the cryptic create_branch/crypto sentence adds little.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

Most sentences are front-loaded and purposeful, but 'creating a branch mints a data key, so create_branch stays on the local crypto plane' is confusing and does not help callers invoke delete_branch. Not every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 3-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, it provides the return format, destruction scope, irreversibility, and the target use case. The unclear create_branch aside leaves a small completeness gap, but nothing essential for calling the tool 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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a pointer to list_branches for the slug, which the schema already states, so no substantial new semantics are introduced.

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: 'Tear down an ephemeral branch config and every value it overrode.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling delete_* tools by scoping it to branch config and stating the parent environment remains untouched.

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 names the routine use case explicitly ('the routine cleanup when a PR merges') and tells the caller to find slugs with list_branches. It does not enumerate when-not-to-use cases or explicitly contrast with other delete tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All seekrit — secrets for agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and many descriptions explicitly call out their near neighbors (list_envs vs list_env_groups vs list_group_envs). The main ambiguity is the three-way env/group listing cluster and the partial overlap between list_orgs and whoami, but the descriptions largely mitigate misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Snake_case verb_noun naming dominates (list_*, create_*, delete_*, revoke_*, rename_*), and the kms_ prefix is used consistently. A few outliers like audit, billing, whoami, signup, get_started, local_tool_for, and setup_local_crypto break the strict pattern, but they are still readable and no camelCase or chaotic mixing is present.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is far above the 25-tool threshold and creates a heavy surface for an agent to navigate. The broad domain of apps, groups, envs, secrets, members, tokens, KMS, and leases partially justifies the size, but several list/delete/revoke families could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The set covers control-plane lifecycle well for apps, groups, and invitations, and provides solid list/delete/revoke coverage for envs, branches, tokens, leases, and KMS. However, create operations for envs, branches, tokens, and leases, plus all secret value reads/writes, are deliberately delegated to the local crypto plane; local_tool_for and setup_local_crypto help bridge the gap, but the server is not standalone-complete.

Resources

Need Help?