Search accessible vaults by keyword, tag, or folder to locate stored credentials; decrypt item metadata locally and return safe summaries with opaque handles.
Search accessible vaults by keyword, tag blind index, or folder. Decrypts item metadata locally and returns safe summaries with opaque handles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| vaultId | No | ||
| folderId | 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 to lean on, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: metadata is decrypted locally (client-side processing) and results are 'safe summaries with opaque handles' rather than plaintext secrets, scoped to 'accessible' vaults. It still omits pagination, result limits, and any auth/permission details, so it is not fully transparent.
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 no filler; the search scope and facets come first, and the return-handling behavior second. 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?
For a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description gives an agent the gist of what comes back but not enough to call it precisely: facet combination semantics, pagination/limits, and the role of vaultId are all unaddressed.
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% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It maps three concepts—keyword (query), tag blind index (tag), and folder (folderId)—but leaves vaultId unexplained and does not say whether multiple facets combine as AND or OR, so compensation is partial.
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 (search) and resource (accessible vaults), and enumerates the three search facets: keyword, tag blind index, and folder. The phrase 'returns safe summaries with opaque handles' implicitly contrasts it with fetch-style siblings like vault_get_secret, but no sibling is named explicitly, so differentiation is inferable rather than stated.
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 implies a discovery-then-fetch workflow by describing search facets and safe summaries, but never states when to use this tool versus vault_get_secret or vault_list_tags, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is reasonably self-evident for a search tool but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.