AI 에이전트를 위한 암호화된 로컬 볼트 — MCP 프로토콜 사용
enigmagent-mcp는 EnigmAgent를 위한 모델 컨텍스트 프로토콜(MCP) 서버입니다. AES-256-GCM + Argon2id로 암호화된 자격 증명 볼트를 MCP 도구로 노출하여, MCP 호환 AI 에이전트(Claude Desktop, Cursor, Continue.dev, Open WebUI, AnythingLLM, LM Studio 등)가 런타임에 {{PLACEHOLDER}} 비밀값을 해결할 수 있도록 합니다.
LLM은 실제 API 키나 자격 증명을 절대 볼 수 없습니다.
npx enigmagent-mcp --vault ./my.vault.jsonRelated MCP server: mcp-keyward
암호화된 볼트에 비밀값 저장: { "OPENAI_KEY": "sk-..." }
에이전트 프롬프트에서 {{OPENAI_KEY}} 사용
LLM이 메시지를 받기 전에 EnigmAgent가 이를 해결
resolve_secret — {{PLACEHOLDER}}를 볼트 값으로 해결
list_keys — 사용 가능한 플레이스홀더 이름 목록 표시 (값은 표시되지 않음)
vault_status — 볼트 잠금 상태 확인
AES-256-GCM 대칭 암호화
Argon2id 키 파생 (메모리 집약적, GPU 저항성)
제로 클라우드 — 볼트는 절대 사용자의 기기를 벗어나지 않음
제로 텔레메트리 — 분석이나 콜백 없음
브라우저 확장 프로그램, npm 라이브러리, Python SDK 및 기타 통합 정보: https://github.com/Agnuxo1/EnigmAgent
MIT
List all secret names and their bound domains. Never returns actual secret values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite no annotations, the description discloses a key behavioral trait: it never returns secret values, which informs the agent about safety and limits.
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?
Extremely concise with two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no superfluous text.
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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and a critical behavioral constraint, though pagination or ordering details are absent.
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?
No parameters exist, so baseline 4 is appropriate as per instructions; no additional param info needed.
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?
Description clearly states it lists secret names and bound domains, and explicitly distinguishes from a value-returning tool by stating 'Never returns actual secret values.'
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'enigmagent_resolve', but the description's emphasis on listing metadata implies usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Resolve a secret placeholder from the EnigmAgent vault. Returns the decrypted value. Domain binding is enforced: the origin must match the secret's bound domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| placeholder | Yes | The secret name to resolve. Supports {{NAME}}, {{LOGIN:domain}}, {{DOC:filename}} syntax (pass without the braces). | |
| origin | Yes | The requesting origin URL (e.g. https://api.example.com). Must match the secret's domain binding. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description correctly notes returns decrypted value and domain enforcement, but lacks details on error conditions (e.g., mismatch) or side effects.
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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words.
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?
Given no output schema, the description mentions return value but omits error handling or detailed result format. Adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.
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?
The description adds valuable context to both parameters: placeholder syntax variants and origin requirement, going beyond the schema descriptions.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Resolve' and the resource 'secret placeholder from the EnigmAgent vault', and distinguishes from sibling 'enigmagent_list' by specifying it returns the decrypted value.
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 explains the domain binding and placeholder syntax, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0enigmagent_listenigmagent_resolveScored across 2 tools
The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one lists secret names and domains, the other resolves placeholder values. There is no ambiguity between them.
Both tools share a consistent 'enigmagent_' prefix followed by a verb ('list', 'resolve'), following a predictable verb_noun pattern.
With only 2 tools, the set is on the low end of what is reasonable. While each tool is distinct, the total number feels minimal for a secret management server.
The tool surface lacks basic CRUD operations like create, update, or delete secrets. Agents can only list and resolve, which is insufficient for comprehensive secret management.
A secret store for AI agents: the agent never sees the plaintext.
Encrypted secret store and rotation for autonomous agent credentials
Secrets for developers and agents—secure context and workflows without exposing secret values.
Give your AI hands. Identity, credential vault, and API gateway for autonomous agents.
