Replit MCP Server

get_secrets

Retrieve environment variables and secrets from a Replit workspace to manage configuration settings and secure data access.

Instructions

List all environment variables/secrets for a repl

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": "get_secrets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`replId`	No	Optional repl ID (uses active repl if not specified)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jan 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists secrets but doesn't clarify if this requires authentication, what the output format is (e.g., list of key-value pairs), or if there are rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool handling sensitive data like secrets.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the complexity of handling secrets (sensitive data) and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address security implications, return format, or error handling, which are critical for such a tool. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these missing behavioral aspects.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'replId' documented as optional and defaulting to the active repl. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, such as format examples or edge cases, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('environment variables/secrets for a repl'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_repl_details' or 'list_files' in terms of scope or output format, which prevents a perfect score.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_repl_details' (which might include secrets) or 'set_secret' (for writing). It also doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an active repl or specific permissions, leaving usage context unclear.

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