AgentVault MCP Server

av_rotate_secret

Rotate a secret's value in a secure vault by replacing it with new credentials. Specify the vault, secret name, and new field values.

Instructions

Rotate (replace) a secret's value.

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": {
      "vault": "<vault>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "fields": "<fields>"
    },
    "name": "av_rotate_secret"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`vault`	Yes
`fields`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation replaces the value, implying mutation, but provides no details on versioning, whether it requires the secret to exist, or any side effects. This is minimally informative.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It earns high marks for brevity, though it is somewhat underspecified for the operation's details.

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 tool has three required parameters including a nested object and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., whether the secret must already exist), and the exact semantics of the fields parameter.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of the three parameters (vault, name, fields) beyond the schema's minimal type definitions. The phrase 'a secret's value' hints at fields but does not clarify the structure expected for the fields object.

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 (rotate/replace) and target (a secret's value), providing a straightforward purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling av_put_secret, which likely also modifies secrets, so it loses the fifth point.

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?

No guidance on when to use rotate versus put, or any context for when rotation is appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.

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

Deploy Server