Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aarifmms/keyblind

aarifmms/keyblind

by aarifmms
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

store_secret

Encrypt and store a secret in an AES-256-GCM vault to keep API keys and credentials out of LLM conversation transcripts.

Instructions

Store a secret in the encrypted vault. The value is encrypted with AES-256-GCM before storage. The secret value is never visible in the LLM conversation transcript after this call.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "store_secret"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
expNoExpiry epoch seconds bound into the signature (required with agentId)
nameYesA unique name for the secret (e.g., OPENAI_API_KEY, DATABASE_URL)
nonceNoSingle-use nonce bound into the signature (required with agentId)
tokenNoOrg-issued short-lived access token (alternative to agentId)
valueYesThe secret value to encrypt and store
agentIdNoAgent ID for signed, scope-enforced access (optional)
signatureNoEd25519 signature over 'write:<name>:<nonce>:<exp>' in base64 (optional)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.9.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / agentId
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Agent ID for signed, scope-enforced access (optional)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / exp
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Expiry epoch seconds bound into the signature (required with agentId)",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / nonce
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Single-use nonce bound into the signature (required with agentId)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / signature
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Ed25519 signature over 'write:<name>:<nonce>:<exp>' in base64 (optional)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Org-issued short-lived access token (alternative to agentId)",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: AES-256-GCM encryption at rest and that the value will not appear in the transcript afterward. However, it says nothing about overwrite semantics for an existing name, permission/scope-enforcement failures, or whether the call is reversible, which matter for a write operation with a complex auth model.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, with no filler. The encryption and transcript sentences both add value, though the transcript point is the more useful of the two for an agent deciding what to pass in.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a seven-parameter mutation with a non-trivial signed-auth model and no annotations or output schema, the description leaves the agent without any explanation of the authentication options or the result of the call. The security posture is well covered, but the operational picture is not.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the seven parameters, including the signed-access trio of agentId/nonce/exp/signature, are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that baseline, so a 3 is the correct ceiling.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb and resource ("Store a secret in the encrypted vault"), which cleanly separates it from resolve_secret, list_secrets, and delete_secret without needing to name them. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the operation is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as registering an agent first, and no hint about which of the two auth paths (token vs. agentId+nonce+exp+signature) an agent should take. The agent must infer all of this from the schema.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools