Secret Store

Update saved login

update_login

Idempotent

Change a saved login's name, URL, username, password or notes (omitted fields stay as they are). Requires logins:write and the editor role.

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>",
      "login": "<login>"
    },
    "name": "update_login"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	No
`name`	No	Shown in lists; derived from the URL when omitted
`login`	Yes	Login id, or its exact name as shown by list_logins
`notes`	No
`project`	Yes	Project slug or id
`password`	No
`username`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing patch semantics (untouched fields are preserved) and the exact permission/role requirement needed to succeed — neither of which is derivable from the annotations.

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 compact sentence pair: the mutation scope is front-loaded, the partial-update rule follows, and the permission prerequisite closes it. No filler or repetition of schema detail.

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 7-parameter mutation with no output schema and no annotation hints about permissions, the definition covers updatable fields, partial-update behavior, and authorization. It could say more about error/ambiguity behavior when the login identifier matches multiple entries, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 43%, so the description must compensate, and it names five of the seven parameters while explaining the key behavioral rule that omitted fields remain unchanged. The two required params (project, login) are not described there, though the schema does supply descriptions for both, leaving only a minor gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource ("Change a saved login") and enumerates exactly which attributes are mutable (name, URL, username, password, notes), so an agent can immediately tell this apart from create_login or delete_login. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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?

Clear context is given: this is a partial-update operation ("omitted fields stay as they are") and it states the prerequisite scopes (logins:write plus the editor role). There is no explicit when-not guidance or routing to alternative tools, which keeps it below a 5.

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?