secrets_updateRotate an existing secret by overwriting its stored value with a new one. Use the key to target a secret; provide value for scripted, non-interactive updates.
Rotate (overwrite) an existing secret value
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | Secret key name | |
| value | No | Secret value (use for non-interactive / scripted usage) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.27Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds the useful detail that the prior value is overwritten/rotated, but says nothing about reversibility limits, permissions, or audit implications.
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?
Six words, front-loaded with the action and scope, zero filler. Every token earns its place.
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 two-parameter mutation whose annotations already carry the destructive/read-only profile and whose schema documents both fields, the description is nearly sufficient. It still leaves the create-vs-update routing and the optional-value workflow implicit, which is the only real gap.
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 'key' and 'value' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb plus resource: 'Rotate (overwrite) an existing secret value' tells an agent exactly what happens and to what. It is clear enough to distinguish from secrets_create/secrets_delete by implication, but never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
No statement of when to use this versus secrets_create (new secret) or secrets_delete, and no mention of prerequisites or the interactive-vs-scripted value distinction. Usage is only implied by the word 'existing'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.