Retrieve an action secret by its ID to access stored secret details for automation workflows. Use the secret ID to fetch the matching record from VCF Automation.
Fetch action secret Retrieves action secret by given id GET /abx/api/resources/action-secrets/{id}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID of the action secret (path) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description only repeats 'Fetch'/'Retrieves' and supplies the endpoint path; it adds no behavioral context such as authentication requirements, pagination, or how secret values are exposed.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the action. The first two phrases are somewhat redundant ('Fetch action secret' / 'Retrieves action secret by given id'), but the endpoint path is useful and there is no filler.
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 simple read-by-ID tool with full schema coverage and strong annotations, the core operation is adequately described. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify what is returned (e.g., secret value or metadata) or distinguish this from the list endpoint, leaving some ambiguity.
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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter is documented as 'ID of the action secret (path)'. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas 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?
The description clearly states a specific verb and resource ('Fetch action secret') and confirms retrieval by ID. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as abx_get_action_secrets (list) or abx_get_action_secret, but the by-ID intent is still evident.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the single-item retrieval counterpart to the list endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.