Update a secret's name or value by its ID; omitted attributes retain their original values.
Update specific secret by id [PATCH /v1/secrets/{secretId}] Update attributes to your secret. Attributes are optional. If not set, the attributes will retain their original values. Only name and value can be updated.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON request body | |
| secretId | Yes | The id of the secret | |
| x-trace-id | No | Identifier to trace group of requests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description adds the key behavioral fact that this is a partial merge update where omitted fields keep their original values. It doesn't cover auth requirements, whether the old value is recoverable, or audit side effects, but the merge semantics are the main non-obvious trait.
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 first sentence and the endpoint tag are front-loaded and useful, but 'Update attributes to your secret' restates the opening sentence and earns no place. The remaining two sentences are substantive, so the waste is limited rather than structural.
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 PATCH mutation with annotations covering the safety profile, no output schema, and fully described params, the description supplies the semantics an agent most needs: optional fields, merge behavior, updateable attributes. It is nearly complete; only permission/irreversibility context is 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents secretId, name, value and x-trace-id. The description adds the constraint that only name and value can be updated, but that is already visible from the body properties, so the added value is marginal and the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Update specific secret by id') and pins it to the PATCH endpoint, which separates it from create_secret, delete_secret and retrieve_secret by HTTP semantics alone. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
'Attributes are optional. If not set, the attributes will retain their original values' gives usable partial-update guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over create_secret or delete_secret, nor any prerequisite such as permissions or secret ownership.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.