Decrypts a shared secret from a share URL fragment and optionally stores it under a different name.
Receive and decrypt a shared secret from a share URL fragment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fragment | Yes | The share URL fragment (everything after # in the share link) | |
| targetName | No | Optional: store under a different name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses decryption but omits important side effects (e.g., whether the secret is stored locally), permission requirements, and return format—critical gaps for a secret-handling tool.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that immediately communicates the action, resource, and input source with zero waste.
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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the core operation but leaves out the return value (no output schema exists) and whether the secret is persisted, which an agent would need to know.
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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are fully documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's existing explanations, which is baseline-adequate.
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 ('Receive and decrypt') and resource ('shared secret') with a clear source ('from a share URL fragment'), making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like create_share_link.
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 clear context for use: when you have a share URL fragment. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the condition is sufficient for an agent to select it over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.