Write an edge function secret server-side with human approval, never exposing it to the app.
Write an edge function secret (FAL_KEY etc.) — server-side, never enters the app. Human approval.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ref | Yes | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| approval_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states the secret is stored "server-side, never enters the app" and that "Human approval" is required, but omits whether an existing secret is overwritten, permission requirements, and error behavior for a mutation tool.
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?
A single tightly-written sentence with the action and its distinguishing behavior front-loaded. No filler, though the em-dash clause compresses critical info (approval requirement) into a fragment.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, for a write tool with no annotations and 0% param coverage, gaps around overwrite semantics and the approval_id workflow leave the agent under-informed.
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 0% for 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It only indirectly signals that name takes a key like FAL_KEY and that approval_id relates to human approval; ref, value, and the approval_id contract are left undocumented.
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 ("Write") and resource ("edge function secret") with an example (FAL_KEY), which lets an agent distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like supabase_get_keys. Sibling differentiation is only implicit, but the write action is unmistakable.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives (e.g., vs supabase_get_keys or other setup_credentials tools) are named. "Human approval" hints at a workflow prerequisite but doesn't explain when the agent should reach for this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.