Tessryx

Get secret

get_secret

Read-only

Get a single secret by slug or id (metadata only — the value is never returned; value_preview is a non-sensitive hint such as the last few characters). To add or change a secret's value, send the user to https://tessryx.io/dashboard/secrets; it cannot be set through this assistant.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	No	the secret slug (provide this or secret_id)
`secret_id`	No	the secret id (provide this or slug)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes
`secret_id`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`updated_at`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`display_name`	Yes
`value_preview`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the read-only nature, but the description adds meaningful specifics: value_preview is a non-sensitive hint (last few characters), and the tool cannot set values through the assistant. These details go beyond the annotation without contradicting it.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no filler. The first sentence states the operation and constraints; the second provides the alternative path. Every word serves a purpose.

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?

For a simple metadata-get tool with two optional parameters and a straightforward output, the description covers purpose, key limitations, preview behavior, and the fallback path. It could explicitly reference list_secrets for multi-secret needs, but the singular framing makes that inferable.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage with both slug and secret_id described, including the 'provide this or the other' mutual exclusivity. The description reinforces 'by slug or id' but adds only marginal value beyond the schema's existing parameter documentation.

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 states a clear verb (get), resource (single secret by slug or id), and scope (metadata only, value never returned). It implicitly distinguishes from the list_secrets sibling by emphasizing 'single' and explicitly clarifies the metadata-only nature.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool — for adding or changing a secret's value — and directs the user to the dashboard URL instead. It also states the value is never returned, setting expectations for when this tool cannot fulfill a value request.

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

All Tessryx 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every resource family follows the same verb+noun pattern and each tool name uniquely identifies a resource-action pair (create_app vs create_app_version vs update_app vs publish_app). Closest overlaps like analyze_resource vs get_resource_graph and patch_datafile vs update_datafile are explicitly differentiated by their descriptions, so misselection risk is low despite the scale.

Naming Consistency5/5

Names are almost uniformly verb_noun snake_case with a consistent lifecycle vocabulary: create/get/update/delete/list/publish/unpublish/version. Minor outliers like whoami and run_schedule_now are idiomatic and do not break the predictability of the set.

Tool Count1/5

At 93 tools this far exceeds the calibration's 50+ extreme-mismatch case. The count is inflated by repeating create/get/update/delete/version/publish/unpublish across ten resource families; even though each family is systematic, the combined surface is very hard for an agent to navigate and keep in context.

Completeness4/5

Core CRUD/publish/version lifecycles are present for apps, workflows, endpoints, schedules, schemas, datafiles, and api templates, and dependency analysis is well covered. However, secret creation/updating, asset upload, custom-domain deletion, and version-range enumeration for several resource types are absent or left to the external dashboard, so agents hit a few manual dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?