Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
clavis-mcp-server

clavis-mcp-server

by KN0WBOT
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_credentials

Return raw credentials for a service when you need the API key directly. Includes automatic token refresh and rotation.

Instructions

LEGACY — returns raw credential data into this conversation. Prefer call_service for security: call_service injects credentials server-side so the raw API key is never exposed to the model. Use this only when you must hold the token itself (e.g. handing it to a library that cannot be proxied). Clavis handles token refresh and rotation automatically.

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": {
      "service_name": "<service_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_credentials"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
service_nameYesThe name of the service to retrieve credentials for (e.g. 'github', 'openai')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that raw credentials are exposed to the model, flags itself as LEGACY, and notes automatic token refresh/rotation. This is comprehensive for a simple read tool.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: purpose, security warning, usage restriction, and automatic refresh behavior. Front-loaded with the core function, no redundant content.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, this is complete. It covers purpose, security context, alternatives, and lifecycle behavior. Nothing critical 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% ('The name of the service to retrieve credentials for...'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not additive.

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 exactly what it does: 'returns raw credential data into this conversation.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool call_service by noting it's the legacy/exposing variant.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: 'Prefer call_service for security' and 'Use this only when you must hold the token itself (e.g. handing it to a library that cannot be proxied).' This clearly differentiates from siblings.

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