seekrit — secrets for agents

delete_secret

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete a secret from an environment, discarding its ciphertext and every version. Irreversible — restore_secret CANNOT bring it back (that only rolls back within a surviving secret's history), and re-creating it means setting the value again on the local crypto plane. Prefer restore_secret to undo a bad write. Confirm intent before calling. Returns { ok, name }.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`app`	Yes	Application slug or id, as returned by list_apps (e.g. "storefront").
`env`	Yes	Environment slug or id within that application, as returned by list_envs (e.g. "production").
`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.
`name`	Yes	The secret's name — the variable name it is injected as, e.g. "DATABASE_URL". Names come from list_secrets; this is never a value.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations' destructiveHint, the description discloses irreversibility, that every version is discarded, that restoration is impossible, and that recreating requires setting the value again on the local crypto plane. It also states the exact return shape, { ok, name }, which is especially valuable since no output schema exists.

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?

The description is compact yet information-dense, front-loading the core action and then layering essential warnings, usage guidance, and return format. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive, irreversible operation, this description is complete: it explains side effects, irreversibility, the alternative tool, a confirmation warning, and return format. Combined with high schema coverage and relevant annotations, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it safely and correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already provides detailed meanings for app, env, org, and name. The description adds little parameter-specific value, but none is needed because the schema carries the full burden. This meets the baseline of 3.

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: 'Delete a secret from an environment,' and immediately clarifies scope by saying 'discarding its ciphertext and every version.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like restore_secret and delete_env by naming restore_secret explicitly and explaining the difference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives direct usage guidance: 'Prefer restore_secret to undo a bad write' and explains that restore_secret cannot recover a deleted secret. It also tells the agent to 'Confirm intent before calling,' making the when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions explicit.

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?