Skip to main content
Glama
Wolstapp

stillvault-mcp

by Wolstapp
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Both tools handle secrets but have clearly distinct purposes: stillvault_reveal returns the secret value to the conversation, while stillvault_run uses it in a command without revealing it. Their descriptions explicitly differentiate them and provide guidance on when to use each, leaving no ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent 'stillvault_verb' pattern in snake_case. The verb choice ('reveal' and 'run') clearly indicates their action, and the naming is uniform and predictable.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels minimal but appropriately focused on its purpose: using secrets with human approval. However, it lacks any administrative tools (e.g., list, create, delete secrets), which might be expected from a secrets management server, making the count borderline.

    Completeness3/5

    The tools cover the two primary use cases (revealing and running secrets), but there is no way to discover available secrets or manage them. Agents must know the secret path in advance, which is a notable gap that could cause failures when the path is unknown.

  • Average 4.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • No commit activity data available
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Without annotations, the description warns about exposing the secret to model context and provider logs, and explains the human approval blocking behavior. This fully discloses the tool's impact.

    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?

    Four sentences, each carrying essential information: purpose, warning, alternative, usage context. Front-loaded with key action and important warning.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage, warnings, behavioral expectations, and alternative. Complete.

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

    Parameters4/5

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

    The single parameter 'path' is well-described in the schema. The description adds practical detail about the prefix format, but schema coverage is 100%, so description adds marginal value.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    Clearly states it returns a secret's plaintext value after human approval. Distinguishes from sibling stillvault_run by specifying that it exposes the value, whereas stillvault_run uses it without revealing.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly advises preferring stillvault_run unless the value must be read, provides specific use cases (display to human, write to a file), and notes that the call blocks until human approval.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that secrets are never returned, only output is shown, and that the call blocks for human approval. This fully informs the agent of the tool's safety and behavior.

    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 well-structured and front-loaded with the key purpose. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value, including examples and edge cases. A minor reduction for not being as terse as possible, but still very efficient.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool's complexity (secrets, human approval, multiple param modes), the description covers all necessary aspects: blocking, injection, substitution syntax, and comparison with sibling. No output schema is needed as output is command-dependent.

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

    Parameters5/5

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

    All three parameters have schema descriptions, and the description adds significant value beyond them: explains substitution syntax, secret_env mode, and when args are ignored. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the structured schema.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool runs a local command with a secret from Stillvault, distinguishing it from stillvault_reveal by specifying when to use each. The verb 'run' and resource 'command with secret' are explicit.

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

    Usage Guidelines5/5

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

    Explicitly says to prefer this over stillvault_reveal for using secrets, and provides examples (psql, curl). It also notes the human approval step and blocking behavior, giving clear context for when to invoke this tool.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

stillvault-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

stillvault-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Wolstapp/stillvault-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server