seekrit — secrets for agents

signup

Create a seekrit workspace and your own machine credential — one call, no human, no browser. Binds the credential to this session, so every other tool works on your next call with no config change and no reconnect. Returns { org, credential: { clientId, clientSecret }, sessionBound, next }. Save the clientId + clientSecret: the secret is shown once, is not retrievable, and is how you reconnect later. Call this if a tool says you have no credential.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`orgName`	Yes	The real project, product, or company this workspace is for (e.g. "Acme Storefront") — NOT a placeholder like "test" or "agent". A human will later claim the org by this name.
`orgSlug`	Yes	URL-safe identifier derived from the project, lowercase letters/numbers/hyphens (e.g. "acme-storefront"). Throwaway slugs make the org unmanageable.
`clientName`	No	Optional label for this machine credential (defaults to <slug>-agent).

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: the credential is session-bound, the clientSecret is shown only once and cannot be retrieved later, and future reconnection depends on saving it. It also states the exact returned shape, giving the agent important expectations about side effects and persistence.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, session binding, return value, secret-retention warning, and when to call. It is front-loaded with the most important purpose and keeps operational guidance close behind.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, 100% schema coverage, and the absence of an output schema, the description is complete. It explains the result shape, the one-time secret behavior, the session binding, and the invocation trigger. Nothing needed for correct use 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains orgName, orgSlug, and clientName in detail. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema carries that burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action and resource: create a workspace and a machine credential in one call. It also clearly differentiates this tool from the broader sibling set by positioning it as the no-human, no-browser bootstrap path that makes other tools work on the next call.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'Call this if a tool says you have no credential.' It also explains that this is a one-time setup action and that the returned secret is the reconnection mechanism. It does not explicitly state when not to call it or name alternatives, but the guidance is clear enough for typical use.

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?