list_secretsList the organization's secrets: each name, who set it, when, and the apps whose versions bind it. Names only. No tool anywhere returns a secret value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the returned metadata includes names, setters, timestamps, and bound app versions, and that even the full tool ecosystem will never expose secret values. This direct disclosure of the tool's security boundary is valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two tight sentences with no wasted words. The core action and scope are front-loaded, the output composition is stated compactly, and the important 'no secret values' limitation earns its place. Every sentence adds information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a parameterless listing tool with annotations covering read-only/idempotent behavior, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is listed, the organizational scope, the fields returned, and the all-important fact that secret values are unreachable. With no output schema present, this description adequately replaces it.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the schema leaves nothing for the description to compensate for. The description still helps by defining the scope ('organization's secrets') and the output fields, which is more than the empty schema provides. A score of 4 is appropriate for a parameterless tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('the organization's secrets'), and precisely enumerates what is returned: each name, who set it, when, and the bound app versions. It also clarifies the scope boundary with 'Names only' and the security guarantee that no tool returns secret values. This unambiguously distinguishes list_secrets from mutation siblings like set_secret and remove_secret.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description makes clear this tool is for obtaining a read-only inventory of secrets, including who set them and which app versions bind them. It also tells the agent that no tool anywhere returns secret values, which prevents futile attempts to retrieve actual secret content. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the listing purpose is not easily confused with create/update/delete operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct actions and resources, such as app CRUD, versioning, sharing, secrets, and folder operations. A few adjacent tools like read_app, read_app_file, and read_app_version, or update_app and publish_app_version, require careful reading, but their descriptions are explicit enough to prevent serious confusion.
The set mostly uses a verb_noun pattern, with names like create_app, list_secrets, set_app_access, and trash_app. However, Unix-style commands like ls, mkdir, mv, tree, and whoami, plus mixed verbs such as get, read, list, remove, and revoke, break any single consistent convention.
24 tools is on the heavy end of the 16-25 range, and while the platform covers apps, versions, folders, sharing, secrets, logs, and databases, the count feels somewhat large. Each tool has a defined role, but several could potentially be consolidated without losing clarity.
The surface covers the main lifecycle well: creating, reading, updating, versioning, sharing, securing, and organizing apps, plus secrets and database queries. Notable gaps are the lack of a permanent delete or restore tool for trashed apps, and the stated absence of captured function logs, but these are workable limitations rather than dead ends.