Create or replace a secret for a Grok Bot cloud agent securely. The value is never echoed in results or logs.
Create or replace a secret. The value is never echoed in the result or logs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotation destructiveHint=true already signals that this operation is destructive (replacing existing secrets). The description adds valuable context that the value is never echoed in results or logs, which is relevant for security-sensitive operations. However, it doesn't disclose other behaviors like permission requirements, idempotency, or what happens to the previous value on replacement beyond implying it's overwritten.
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?
The description is extremely concise: two short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action and a key behavioral note. 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 four parameters with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain required parameters, their purpose, or any side effects beyond the value not being echoed. For a secret-management tool with destructive implications, more context is needed.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the four parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions no parameters at all, leaving 'agent_id', 'name', 'value', and 'description' entirely unexplained. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create or replace a secret.' It's clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like grokbot_delete_secret or grokbot_list_secrets beyond the obvious action difference, which is somewhat self-evident from the name.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the action is clear, it doesn't specify prerequisites (e.g., requiring agent_id), when to use this over other secret-handling tools, or any conditional logic. No explicit when/when-not/alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.