seekrit — secrets for agents

list_secret_versions

Read-onlyIdempotent

List one secret's version history: who wrote each version, when, and which ones were restores. Metadata only — never values. Pair with restore_secret to undo a bad write: read the history here, then pass the version number you want back. Returns { currentVersion, versions: [{ version, createdAt, createdBy, restoredFromVersion }] }, newest first.

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.
`limit`	No	How many versions to return, newest first. 1–200, default 20.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes further by adding the crucial 'metadata only, never values' boundary, explaining version-restore semantics, and revealing the newest-first ordering. This is meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations alone provide, and there is no contradiction.

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 dense sentences carry all key information: action, scope, safety boundary, companion workflow, and return shape. There is no filler or repetition of schema content, and the most important distinguishing details are front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description supplies the exact return shape, field semantics, and ordering. Together with the rich parameter schema and the clearly named sibling tool restore_secret, this gives an agent everything needed to call the tool correctly and interpret the result.

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 has 100% coverage, with each parameter already described in detail, including examples and guidance for org, app, env, and limit. The description does not add parameter-level semantics; its value lies in explaining the output shape, which is relevant but not needed for parameter comprehension given the schema's completeness.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List one secret's version history' and clearly defines what is included (who wrote it, when, whether it was a restore) and what is excluded ('Metadata only — never values'). This distinguishes it from list_secrets and restore_secret, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.

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?

The description explicitly pairs the tool with restore_secret in a concrete workflow: read the history here, then pass the version number to restore. This gives clear guidance on the primary use case. It does not enumerate explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond restore_secret, but the companion-tool pairing is enough for most selection decisions.

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?