x-mcp

x_auth_get_scope_credentials

Retrieve redacted credential metadata and verify if each referenced Vault secret exists for a given tenant principal.

Instructions

List redacted credential metadata and whether each referenced Vault secret currently exists for the selected tenant principal.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "tenantId": "<tenantId>"
    },
    "name": "x_auth_get_scope_credentials"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`userId`	No
`tenantId`	Yes
`accountId`	No
`includeAppProfiles`	No
`includePrincipalProfiles`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 3, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that credentials are redacted and that Vault secret existence is checked, which are important behavioral traits. However, it does not mention permissions or potential edge cases like empty results.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and contains no extraneous words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given five parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It omits return format, parameter semantics, and filtering behavior, making it insufficient for correct invocation beyond the required tenantId.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining parameters. It only hints at 'tenant principal', which may map to tenantId, but leaves userId, accountId, and include flags unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists redacted credential metadata and indicates Vault secret existence, using the specific verb 'List' and defining the scope ('for the selected tenant principal'). This distinguishes it from sibling write tools like x_auth_upsert_* and x_auth_delete_profile.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides context about the target (selected tenant principal) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The read-only nature is implied by 'List' but not stated explicitly.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server