broker.register-credentialRegisters an opaque vault handle/reference only; plaintext secret fields are rejected and never ledgered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| metadata | No | ||
| vault_handle | Yes | Opaque vault reference such as vault://provider/path; never a plaintext secret. |
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?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose an important behavior: plaintext secret fields are rejected and never ledgered. However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as what persists on successful registration, whether registration is idempotent, and what failure/success responses look like.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the primary action and constraint. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.
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?
The description is too minimal for a credential-registration tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not explain return values, the role of the registered credential, how it relates to grant/access tools, or the meaning of the required fields. The plaintext-rejection rule is valuable but not sufficient context.
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?
The description reinforces the meaning of vault_handle by stating it must be opaque and not a plaintext secret, which adds value beyond the schema. However, with 50% schema description coverage and several required fields not even represented in the shown properties, the description does not sufficiently clarify the remaining parameters like organization_id or allowed_action_type.
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 ('Registers') and a specific resource ('opaque vault handle/reference'), and adds the key constraint that plaintext secrets are rejected. It is clear about the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling broker.* tools.
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 intended use is implied: register a credential by providing an opaque vault handle, not plaintext secrets. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like broker.use, broker.request-access, or the mandate.* tools, and no workflow context is provided.
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 distinct resources and actions, but broker.request-access and mandate.authorize-action both route through the Policy Engine and could be confused for the same intent. broker.revoke-grant and mandate.revoke are distinct in scope but similar in naming; descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.
The domain-prefixed verb_noun pattern is mostly consistent, e.g. broker.register-credential, broker.revoke-grant, mandate.authorize-action. Minor deviations like broker.use and mandate.revoke are less explicit about their object, but they remain readable and predictable.
Eleven tools is well-scoped for a credential/mandate broker, covering issuance, delegation, access, revocation, and proof without redundancy. Each tool appears to earn its place in the workflow.
The core mandate lifecycle (mint, delegate, revoke) and grant flow (register, request, use, introspect, revoke) are covered, with no immediate dead ends. However, there is no query/list/status tool for existing mandates or credentials, and credential management lacks removal or rotation operations, which creates notable gaps for state discovery.