Skip to main content
Glama
I4cTime

q-ring

by I4cTime
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ci_validate_secrets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate all accessible secrets against their detected providers in one batch, returning a pass/fail report for CI gates or pre-rotation health checks.

Instructions

[validation] Validate every accessible secret in the requested scope against its detected provider in a single batch and return a structured pass/fail report. Use as a CI gate ('do all our credentials still work before deploy?') or as a pre-rotation health pass; prefer validate_secret for a single key. Side effects: one outbound request per validatable secret (cost scales with N). Reads each secret value (records 'read' audit events). Returns JSON { total, valid, invalid, results: [...] } listing per-key status, provider, and error messages where applicable. Returns 'No secrets to validate' if nothing in scope has a provider mapping.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orgIdNoOrganization identifier for org-scoped secrets. Required only when scope='org'. Example: 'acme-corp'.
scopeNoWhere the secret lives. 'global' = user keyring (default if omitted on reads), 'project' = scoped to projectPath, 'team' = team-shared (needs teamId), 'org' = org-shared (needs orgId).
teamIdNoTeam identifier for team-scoped secrets. Required only when scope='team'. Example: 'acme-platform'.
projectPathNoAbsolute path to the project root for project-scoped secrets and policy resolution. Defaults to the MCP server's current working directory when omitted.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.11.7
    • changedInput schema / properties / orgId / description
      Previous value: -"Org identifier for org-scoped secrets"New value: +"Organization identifier for org-scoped secrets. Required only when scope='org'. Example: 'acme-corp'."
    • changedInput schema / properties / projectPath / description
      Previous value: -"Project root path for project-scoped secrets"New value: +"Absolute path to the project root for project-scoped secrets and policy resolution. Defaults to the MCP server's current working directory when omitted."
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Previous value: -"Scope: global, project, team, or org"New value: +"Where the secret lives. 'global' = user keyring (default if omitted on reads), 'project' = scoped to projectPath, 'team' = team-shared (needs teamId), 'org' = org-shared (needs orgId)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / teamId / description
      Previous value: -"Team identifier for team-scoped secrets"New value: +"Team identifier for team-scoped secrets. Required only when scope='team'. Example: 'acme-platform'."
  2. Addedv0.11.5

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing cost scaling ('one outbound request per validatable secret'), audit side effects ('records read audit events'), the exact JSON return shape, and the 'No secrets to validate' empty-scope case. This is rich behavioral context an agent cannot get 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then usage, then side effects, then return contract. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a four-param, zero-required tool with no output schema, the description supplies the return structure, side-effect cost, audit implications, and empty-result behavior — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents orgId/scope/teamId/projectPath and their conditional requirements. The description only alludes to 'the requested scope' without adding format or constraint detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Validate every accessible secret ... against its detected provider in a single batch') plus the output artifact. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling validate_secret for single-key use.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives two concrete use cases (CI gate before deploy, pre-rotation health pass) and names the alternative tool with the condition that selects it ('prefer validate_secret for a single key'). No inference required.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools