Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
veilform

veilform

by asteby
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Delete a stored secret

secret_delete
Destructive

Delete a secret by name, optionally only from one destination, to revoke credentials the agent should no longer use.

Instructions

Deletes a secret by name (optionally only from one destination).

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>"
    },
    "name": "secret_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
destinationNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive operation. The description usefully adds that deletion can be scoped to a single destination ('optionally only from one destination'), which is meaningful context beyond the annotation, but it says nothing about irreversibility, permissions, or effects on other destinations.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope qualifier folded into a parenthetical. Nothing is wasted and the core action is front-loaded.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, so the description should carry more weight. It leaves open whether the deletion is reversible, what happens if the named secret or destination does not exist, and how the destination scope interacts with the name.

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 0%, so the description must carry the param burden. It does map both parameters at a basic level ('by name' for name, 'only from one destination' for destination), but provides no format, syntax, or default details, so it only partially compensates.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Deletes a secret by name'), which is precise and unambiguous. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from sibling mutation tools like secret_rotate, secret_write, or secret_use, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tool versus alternatives such as secret_rotate or secret_write, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The parenthetical only clarifies scope, not when-to-use.

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