Store a named secret in Wave Terminal with confirmation and a stated reason. Use it to save credentials or tokens for later use within the terminal environment.
Set a Wave Terminal secret (Tier C — requires approved=true and a non-empty reason). Requires the Seashell Helper.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Secret key name | |
| value | Yes | Secret value to store | |
| reason | Yes | Why you are setting this secret | |
| approved | Yes | Set to true to confirm |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full load. It does disclose the approval gate and the external dependency ('Requires the Seashell Helper'), which is useful context beyond the schema, but it omits whether an existing key is overwritten, whether the value is stored/returned in plaintext, and what a successful or failed call looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage that is a real gap.
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 sentences, no filler, and the gating requirements are front-loaded in the parenthetical. Efficient, though the parenthetical is slightly dense.
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-param required write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites and the approval gate but not overwrite behavior or return semantics. Adequate to invoke correctly, incomplete for predicting outcomes.
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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description does add one constraint not in the schema — that reason must be non-empty — which is genuinely useful, but it adds nothing about approved semantics or value handling.
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 and resource ('Set a Wave Terminal secret'), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling wave_secret_list/get/delete tools by name and noun. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with those siblings, but the action is unambiguous.
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 gives prerequisites (approved=true, non-empty reason, Seashell Helper required) but never says when to reach for this versus wave_secret_list or wave_secret_get, nor what happens if the key already exists. Usage is implied by the gate rather than explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.