Check whether a secret reference resolves correctly before use. Returns only an ok status and masked value, keeping plaintext out of your context.
Check whether a secret ref can be resolved. Returns only {ok, masked}; masked never contains value fragments unless defaults.maskTail > 0.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return shape {ok, masked} and a masking constraint, but omits side-effect/read-only status, required permissions, and failure behavior.
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 concise sentences with zero waste. The purpose is front-loaded, and the return/masking constraint follows efficiently.
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 simple one-parameter probe with no annotations or output schema, the description gives purpose and return shape. It remains incomplete on usage routing, permissions, and failure behavior, so it is only moderately complete.
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?
The schema has only one required string parameter with 0% description coverage. The description adds that the parameter represents a secret ref, which is meaningful, but it does not explain format, validation, or examples.
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: checking whether a secret ref can be resolved. It is clear on its own, but it does not name or distinguish itself from siblings such as secret_list or secret_set, leaving routing to inference.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description says what the tool does, but not when an agent should choose it over secret_list or secret_set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.