Acquire a time-bounded lease handle for decrypted secret bytes, letting agents use credentials without exposing plaintext; the buffer auto-zeroes when the TTL expires.
Acquire a time-bounded lease_ handle holding decrypted secret bytes in MCP memory. Automatically zeroes the buffer upon TTL expiration.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| secretId | Yes | ||
| ttlSeconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: decrypted bytes are held in MCP memory, the handle has the lease_<ulid> form, and the buffer is zeroed automatically at TTL expiry. It omits permissions/auth requirements, whether the lease is single-use or shareable, and what happens if it expires mid-use, so it is only partially sufficient.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler; the acquisition behavior is front-loaded and the security lifecycle note follows. Every clause earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context, and it leaves gaps: it never says how the lease handle is subsequently consumed, that vault_revoke_lease can end it early, or what errors arise from an invalid secretId. Adequate but incomplete for a security-sensitive 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%, so the description must compensate and largely does not: secretId is never mentioned, and ttlSeconds is only alluded to via 'time-bounded' and 'TTL expiration' with no units, default (60), or max (900) noted. The TTL allusion adds a little meaning but leaves both parameters under-explained.
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 names a specific verb ('Acquire') and a specific resource (a lease_<ulid> handle holding decrypted secret bytes), which is far more than a restated title. It implicitly separates itself from vault_get_secret by framing the result as a lease handle rather than the secret itself, but it never names that sibling 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?
There is no statement of when to choose this over vault_get_secret, vault_search, or when to follow up with vault_revoke_lease. The nearest thing to guidance is the TTL behavior, which is a trait, not a usage condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.