Turbo Quant Memory MCP Server

by Lexus2016

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_secrets

Lists secret names in the active project so agents can see which credentials exist without exposing values. Use it to audit available secrets before referencing them in code.

Instructions

List secret names in the active project. Never returns values.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_secrets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.36.1Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the security-relevant trait that only names come back, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, how the 'active project' is resolved, or whether authorization is required — gaps that matter for a secrets-related tool.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the scope constraint is front-loaded followed immediately by the most important behavioral caveat. Nothing could be cut without losing meaning.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials and flags the one surprising trait (names only). Only minor gaps remain: result ordering/limits and what defines the active project.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The one nuance the description could have added is how 'active project' is determined, which is context rather than a parameter.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('List secret names') plus a scope ('in the active project'), which is enough to separate it from retrieval-oriented siblings like get_secret. It stops short of naming any sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The sentence 'Never returns values' hints at when this tool is and isn't appropriate (enumeration vs. retrieval), but it never says to use get_secret when values are needed, nor does it state any preconditions. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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