Secret Store

Check which keys exist

check_keys

Read-onlyIdempotent

For key names you already have (say, from .env.example), says whether each exists in every environment this token can see, or in one environment. Names only, never values. Requires projects:read.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "keys": "<keys>"
    },
    "name": "check_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`keys`	Yes
`project`	Yes	Project slug or id
`environment`	No	Only this environment (default: every environment the token can see)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`keys`	Yes
`project`	Yes
`environments`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is free. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: only names are returned (never secret values), visibility is bounded by the token's scope, and projects:read is required. It does not discuss limits like the 500-key cap, though the schema covers that.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the precondition (you already have the names), then the behavior, then the critical constraint, then the permission. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

With an output schema, four annotations, and mostly documented parameters, the description covers what an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly. The remaining gap is mild routing detail — it never names the sibling to use when you do not already know the key names.

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 67% and all three parameters carry their own descriptions, including the environment default, so the schema does most of the work. The description reinforces the environment scoping semantics ('every environment this token can see, or in one environment') but adds no new format or constraint detail beyond it.

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 specific operation (existence check) on a specific resource (secret key names), and immediately separates it from value-reading siblings with 'Names only, never values.' An agent can tell this apart from get_secret or list_secrets without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'For key names you already have (say, from .env.example)' gives a clear triggering context — bulk verification of a known key list — and the either/or environment scoping describes the two modes of use. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative tool for the case where you do not already have the key names.

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

All Secret Store tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?