Skip to main content
Glama

search_credentials

Parent-treasury key-centric credential search (treasury credential + keys:manage + wallets:read). Complements search_vaults. Never returns raw bearer keys.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_credentials"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size (default 50, max 100)
queryNoFree-text search
accessNo
cursorNoPagination cursor
statusNo
walletIdNoFilter by vault wallet id
metadataKeyNoExact metadata key (requires metadataValue)
metadataValueNoExact metadata value (requires metadataKey)
credentialKindNo
externalCustomerIdNoExact external customer id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully states the permission prerequisites and a security constraint (never returns raw bearer keys), but omits pagination behavior, result ordering/shape, and rate limits for a 10-parameter search.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and permission scope, and no filler. Every clause adds either scope, sibling context, or security behavior.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-annotation, no-output-schema search tool with 10 parameters, the description covers permissions and a key security guarantee. It is still incomplete on result format and on how to choose between this and search_vaults.

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 coverage is 70%, so most parameters are already described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the broad 'key-centric' framing and does not explain the enum-only access, status, or credentialKind fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb (search) and resource (credentials), scoped to parent-treasury key-centric credentials, and explicitly names search_vaults as a related sibling. The sibling relationship is named but not sharply differentiated, so 4 rather than 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It says it complements search_vaults and lists required permissions, giving implied context for use. It never states when to choose this over search_vaults or when not to use it, leaving the main routing decision to inference.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources