Lists secret names and descriptions from the local vault without exposing values, so you can select one for exec_with_secrets to run approved commands.
List the names and descriptions of secrets available in the local vault. Values are never returned. Use exec_with_secrets to run a command that needs one of these secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden, and it delivers the most important trait: values are never returned, so the agent knows this is non-sensitive enumeration. It also scopes the source to the local vault. What it omits is whether authorisation is required or how large the listing can get, minor gaps for a zero-parameter read.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and what is excluded, followed by the delegation hint. Every sentence earns its place with no restatement of the tool name.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: the resource, the fields returned (names, descriptions), the field deliberately withheld (values), and the follow-up tool. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.
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?
The tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to compensate for any schema gap.
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?
States a specific verb (list) and resource (secrets in the local vault) and narrows the scope to names and descriptions, not values. An agent can immediately distinguish it from the sibling exec_with_secrets, which runs commands rather than enumerating.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent: use this tool to discover secrets, and use exec_with_secrets when a command needs to consume one. The alternative and the condition that selects it are both named, leaving nothing to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.