datalens_embeddingsecrets_getFetch an embedding secret's metadata—name, workbook, and creator—while keeping its private key hidden.
One key for embedding: its name, its workbook, who made it. Never its private key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| embedding_secret_id | Yes | Id of the key for embedding. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing a meaningful behavior: the private key is never returned, which is genuinely useful for an agent deciding what data to expect and whether a follow-up call is needed.
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?
Two tight clauses with the return content front-loaded and the security caveat last. It is efficient and wastes no words, though the clipped phrasing is slightly less readable than a full sentence.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and explicitly notes the omission of the private key, and the annotations carry the read-only/idempotent semantics. For a single-parameter get tool this is close to complete, with only usage routing and error behavior left unaddressed.
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% for the single embedding_secret_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no additional syntax, format, or sourcing detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
The description states it returns a single embedding key and enumerates its fields (name, workbook, author), which clearly distinguishes it from the plural datalens_embeddingsecrets_list sibling. The retrieval verb is implied by the name/title rather than stated, so it falls just short of a fully self-contained purpose statement.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no reference to the alternatives. The agent must infer that this is the by-id retrieval counterpart to datalens_embeddingsecrets_list and datalens_embeddingsecrets_delete.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.