List metadata for all stored credentials, including names, systems, types, and endpoints. Use this to confirm credential names before requesting tokens or adding credentials.
列出凭据库中所有凭据的元数据（名称、系统、类型、字段名、端点配置）。不返回任何密钥明文。在 add/get_token 之前先调用它确认凭据名称。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the tool lists metadata only and explicitly does not return secret plaintext, which is critical for an agent to avoid misuse. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or error behavior, but for a zero-parameter list operation the key safety and scope behaviors are covered.
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?
The description is compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the operation and its output scope, and the second sentence adds a crucial safety warning plus a concrete usage directive. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient information: what metadata is returned, what is not returned, and when to use it. It could mention pagination or return formatting, but these are minor gaps for a credential-listing operation that the agent can call without extra input.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (trivially, since there are no properties). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description appropriately adds no unnecessary parameter information that would be irrelevant.
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 states a specific verb ('list') with a clear resource ('all credential metadata') and enumerates the exact metadata fields returned (name, system, type, field name, endpoint configuration). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from secret-returning tools by noting it returns no plaintext secrets, which differentiates it from siblings like reveal_secret and get_token.
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 explicit guidance to call this tool before add/get_token to confirm credential names. It does not explicitly name alternatives for retrieving actual secrets, but the statement that it returns no plaintext secrets implies when this tool is not appropriate, giving the agent adequate context for routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.