Skip to main content
Glama
I4cTime

q-ring

by I4cTime
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

has_secret

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check whether a secret exists in a scope without reading its value. Use before reading or writing to skip prompts for configured keys; returns true or false, including false for expired secrets.

Instructions

[secrets] Check whether a secret exists in the requested scope without reading the value. Use as a cheap precondition before reading or writing — for example, to skip prompting the user for a key that is already configured. Prefer inspect_secret when you also need metadata. Read-only; does not record a 'read' in the audit log. Decay-aware: returns 'false' for expired secrets even though the value is still in the store. Returns the literal text 'true' or 'false'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyYesExact secret key name. Example: 'GITHUB_TOKEN'.
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. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.11.7
    • changedInput schema / properties / key / description
      Previous value: -"The secret key name"New value: +"Exact secret key name. Example: 'GITHUB_TOKEN'."
    • 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. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.11.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / orgId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Org identifier for org-scoped secrets",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / description
      Previous value: -"Scope: global or project"New value: +"Scope: global, project, team, or org"
    • changedInput schema / properties / scope / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "global",
-  "project"
-]New value: +[
+  "global",
+  "project",
+  "team",
+  "org"
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / teamId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Team identifier for team-scoped secrets",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds traits annotations cannot convey: it does not record a 'read' in the audit log, and it is decay-aware, returning 'false' for expired secrets while the value remains in the store. These are non-obvious behaviors that materially affect how an agent interprets the result.

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-loads the core purpose, then layers usage, alternative routing, and behavioral caveats in tight sentences. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by specifying the return format ('the literal text true or false') and the decay caveat. For a boolean existence check, nothing an agent needs to call or interpret it is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents key, scope, orgId, teamId, and projectPath in detail. The description only references 'the requested scope' and adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 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+resource ('Check whether a secret exists') with an explicit scope qualifier ('in the requested scope without reading the value'). This distinguishes it clearly from get_secret and inspect_secret, so an agent can select it 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 Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit when-to-use ('cheap precondition before reading or writing... to skip prompting the user for a key that is already configured') and names the alternative with its selecting condition ('Prefer inspect_secret when you also need metadata'). Both the use case and the sibling routing are spelled out.

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