VaultCrux Memory Core

Register External Service

register_external_service

Register an external service and store its credential via Vault Transit. Human-only (admin or owner role). The credential is encrypted immediately on receipt and never stored in plaintext. Returns the service registration record without the credential.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`base_url`	Yes	Service base URL (must be HTTPS)
`auth_type`	Yes	Authentication type
`rate_limit`	No	Rate limits for this service
`service_id`	Yes	Tenant-unique identifier for the service
`display_name`	Yes	Human-readable service name
`allowed_paths`	No	Allowed path patterns (default: *)
`auth_injection`	No	How to inject the credential into requests
`allowed_methods`	No	Allowed HTTP methods (default: GET, POST)
`credential_value`	Yes	The credential (encrypted immediately, never stored plaintext)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses important behavioral traits: credential encryption immediately on receipt, no plaintext storage, and the fact that the return record excludes the credential. These are significant details beyond the schema, though it doesn't cover idempotency or conflict handling.

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 three sentences long, front-loads the primary purpose, and every sentence provides value—purpose, access restriction, security behavior, and return value. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description adds essential context about human-only access, encryption, and the non-credentialed return. While it doesn't elaborate on all nested objects, the high schema coverage and output schema reduce the need for that detail.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context around credential_value (encryption) but doesn't provide syntax or format details beyond what the schema already offers. It doesn't compensate for any missing schema information.

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 clearly states the verb 'Register' with the resource 'external service' and specifies the credential storage via Vault Transit. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_external_services by focusing on registration, not listing, and from request_credentialed_call by being the setup action.

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 provides clear context that this tool is human-only and restricted to admin or owner roles, which guides when it should be used. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the role restriction and registration focus imply its specific placement among siblings.

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

All VaultCrux Memory Core 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

C2.8/5.0

Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: check_claim and memory_claim_check are the same function with different tiers, get_freshness_report and memory_freshness_report are duplicates, get_correction_chain and compare_versions both trace history, and investigate_question subsumes many other retrieval tools. This will cause agent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (get_constraints, declare_constraint, sync_pull, etc.). Exceptions like memory_claim_check, memory_freshness_report, session_debrief, and verify_before_acting deviate but are relatively few. Overall the naming is readable and mostly predictable.

Tool Count1/5

75 tools is excessive for a memory server. Many are highly niche or direct duplicates (e.g., paid/free versions of the same function). The count far exceeds typical well-scoped servers and introduces cognitive overhead without proportional value.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide array of memory, constraint, decision, skill, and sync operations, which is impressive. However, there are notable gaps: no direct delete or edit for memory facts (only corrections/versioning), and no bulk enumeration of all stored items. The redundancy in retrieval tools also suggests an incomplete design.

Resources

Need Help?