Send HTTP requests with vault-stored credentials injected via secret or lease handles, keeping plaintext secrets out of model context and scrubbing echoed credentials from responses.
Execute an outbound HTTP request with {{vault:sec_}} or {{vault:lease_}} handles injected into request headers and scrub echoed credentials from response headers and body.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | ||
| body | No | ||
| method | No | ||
| headers | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses two non-obvious traits: handle substitution into request headers and scrubbing of echoed credentials from response headers and body. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, logging or audit behavior, and error semantics for a security-sensitive outbound-call tool.
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?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and folds in the two behavioral traits without waste. Tight and appropriately sized, though the injected syntax is only partially unpacked.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover behavior and returns. It explains the distinctive secret-injection and scrubbing behavior well but says nothing about the response payload, error handling, or the meaning of the url/body/method parameters, leaving gaps for a 4-parameter proxy tool.
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% with 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only implies the 'headers' parameter's role via the injection syntax and leaves url, body, and method (an enum) entirely unexplained beyond their names in the schema.
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 (execute) and resource (outbound HTTP request), and adds the distinctive behavior of vault-handle injection plus credential scrubbing. The resource is unique among siblings, so an agent can tell it apart from vault_inject_env or vault_run_command, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
The description explains what the tool does but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. An agent must infer that this is for making HTTP calls that need secret injection versus the other vault tools that store or retrieve secrets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.