Generate a paste-safe inventory of environment variable keys from a local .env file, with every value redacted for secure sharing in tickets or documentation. Secrets are never echoed.
Produce a paste-safe inventory of keys in an env file with all values redacted. Local .env files only. Reports redact values and never echo secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| envPath | No | Path to env file (default .env). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states that values are redacted and that it 'never echo secrets', which is a valuable safety guarantee. However, it does not describe the exact report format or side effects, though the name implies a read-only operation.
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 with the main purpose front-loaded. There is some redundancy between 'all values redacted' and 'Reports redact values', but overall the description is compact and efficient.
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?
The tool has one optional parameter and no output schema, and the description explains the general behavior and safety guarantees. However, it does not specify the output format, error handling, or conditions under which the tool might fail, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.
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 coverage is 100%, and envPath is documented in the schema. The description adds only the 'Local .env files only' constraint, which is a minor semantic addition rather than a full description of the parameter's meaning.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Produce') and a distinct artifact ('paste-safe inventory of keys in an env file with all values redacted'). It clearly differentiates from siblings 'compare_env_files' and 'detect_empty_required', which serve other purposes.
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?
It gives a usage constraint with 'Local .env files only', but does not explicitly explain when to use this tool over alternatives or mention the sibling tools. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.