Rotate a secret: soft-delete the old node, create a new live node with the same alias and the new ciphertext+recipients. 7-day grace before hard delete of old ciphertext bytes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_id | Yes | ||
| device_id | Yes | ||
| client_hlc | No | ||
| new_recipients | Yes | ||
| new_ciphertext_b64 | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses the soft-delete behavior, the creation of a new live node, and the 7-day grace period before hard delete, offering valuable behavioral context.
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?
Two concise sentences front-load the primary action and include key lifecycle details without wasted words.
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 captures the core workflow and lifecycle, but it omits details about response values and does not clarify implications for the alias during the grace period, though it is adequate for an internal tool.
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 maps 'new ciphertext+recipients' to the corresponding parameters and indicates the alias relationship via node_id, but it leaves device_id and client_hlc unexplained, which is a gap given the schema has no descriptions.
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 clearly states the tool's function: rotating a secret by soft-deleting the old node and creating a new live node with the same alias. This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from sibling tools like secret_pull and secret_push.
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?
It provides clear context for when to use rotation (when you need to replace a secret's ciphertext and recipients) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state exclusionary conditions.
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 clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.
Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).
35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.
Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.