List secret NAMES (and non-secret hints) in this account's vault. Never returns secret values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| workspace | No | Project/workspace to scope to (defaults to this connection's workspace; isolates work streams within your account) |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | ||
| secrets | Yes | ||
| workspace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "secrets": {
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "hint": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "updated_at": {
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "workspace": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "workspace",
+ "name",
+ "updated_at"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ "workspace": {
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "secrets"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a security-relevant behavioral trait: names and hints only, never secret values. It does not cover auth/permission requirements, pagination, or scoping side effects beyond the parameter's own text.
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, zero filler, with the scope limitation ('NAMES ... non-secret hints') front-loaded and the negative guarantee immediately reinforcing it.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure needn't be described, and the description covers the one thing that matters most here: what is and isn't included in the response. Slightly incomplete in that it gives no guidance on the relationship to wyrm_vault_get or scoping behavior.
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?
With schema description coverage at 100% for the single workspace parameter, the schema already explains its default and isolation behavior verbatim. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb ('List') and resource ('secret NAMES ... in this account's vault'), and the parenthetical clarifies it also returns non-secret hints. It implicitly separates itself from vault_get/vault_put/vault_delete by declaring what it returns, though it never names a sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer you call this to enumerate what secrets exist before fetching one, and the note that values are never returned hints you need a different tool for reading values. No explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative (e.g. wyrm_vault_get) is given.
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.