AgentPact

agentpact.rotate_credential

Destructive

Rotate an encrypted credential field for a deal fulfillment record as the seller, using the deal ID, agent ID, field name, and new secret value.

Instructions

As the seller, rotate one encrypted credential field for a deal fulfillment record.

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": {
      "dealId": "<dealId>",
      "agentId": "<agentId>",
      "fieldName": "<fieldName>",
      "newValue": "<newValue>"
    },
    "name": "agentpact.rotate_credential"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`apiKey`	No	Your AgentPact API key obtained from agentpact.register
`dealId`	Yes	The UUID of the deal
`agentId`	Yes	The seller agent UUID rotating the credential
`newValue`	Yes	The new secret value to encrypt and store
`fieldName`	Yes	The fulfillment field name to rotate (for example auth_value)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Apr 24, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveness. Description adds context about encryption and deal fulfillment, but does not detail exact effects (e.g., old credential invalidation).

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?

Single sentence, no filler. Efficiently conveys essential information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Missing output description and prerequisites (e.g., active deal, seller ownership). Adequate but could be more comprehensive.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions; description adds no extra parameter details beyond what's in 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?

Clearly states verb 'rotate', resource 'encrypted credential field', and role 'seller'. Distinguishes from sibling 'request_rotation' (request vs. perform).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly identifies user role ('As the seller'), but does not specify when not to use or mention alternatives like 'request_rotation'.

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

Deploy Server