Retrieve and decrypt a secret from this account's vault by name. Returns the plaintext value — handle with care.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| workspace | No | Project/workspace to scope to (defaults to this connection's workspace; isolates work streams within your account) |
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?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that the operation returns the secret as plaintext and warns to handle it carefully, which is a meaningful behavioral safety note. It does not go into permissions or missing-name behavior, but for a simple retrieval tool this is largely adequate.
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 short sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second gives a necessary security warning. No redundancy.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core return behavior (plaintext secret) and flags sensitivity. Workspace semantics are supplied by the schema, so nothing essential is missing, though error/not-found behavior is unspecified.
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?
Tool description adds that name is the secret's name, which the schema leaves undocumented, and workspace is already explained in the schema. With 50% schema coverage the description partially compensates, but doesn't add syntax or formatting details for either parameter.
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?
States a precise action ('Retrieve and decrypt') and resource ('a secret from this account's vault by name'), and clarifies the result with 'Returns the plaintext value.' This separates it from sibling vault_put/delete/list operations by verb and scope.
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 implies when to use it: when a named vault secret is needed. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative retrieval tools like wyrm_recall, wyrm_search, or wyrm_truth_get, and gives no exclusions.
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.
Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: wyrm_all_quests vs wyrm_quest_list, wyrm_decision_downstream vs wyrm_decision_trace, and wyrm_recall vs wyrm_search are near-duplicates in behavior. wyrm_capture also overlaps with wyrm_remember, wyrm_truth_set, wyrm_quest_add, and wyrm_decided_because, making it hard for an agent to reliably pick the right tool.
Most names share the wyrm_ prefix and many follow a resource-action pattern like truth_set, quest_list, and failure_record. However, the pattern is broken by names like wyrm_all_quests, wyrm_decided_because, wyrm_context_build, wyrm_remember, and wyrm_capture, mixing noun-first, verb-first, and non-patterned names.
At 31 tools this is above the heavy threshold, and several tools appear redundant or mergeable, such as wyrm_all_quests/quest_list, decision_trace/downstream, capture/remember, and context_build/session_prime. The breadth is real, but the count feels inflated by overlapping entry points rather than distinct capabilities.
The tool surface covers core lifecycles well: quests have add/claim/update/complete/release, failures have record/check/list/resolve, decisions have record/trace/invalidate, and the vault has full get/put/list/delete. The main gaps are the lack of delete/update for memory artifacts and ground truths, and no explicit way to remove stale artifacts.
