mcp-1password

by kefapps

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.1
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but the multiple 'reveal' tools (environment_reveal_variable, secret_reveal, password_read with reveal) could cause confusion. Overall, agents can differentiate based on context.
Naming Consistency3/5
Naming is mostly snake_case with verb_noun, but prefixes are inconsistent: some tools use domain prefixes (environment_, password_, vault_) while others lack them (secret_reveal, group_get). This mix reduces predictability.
Tool Count4/5
15 tools is a reasonable count for a password manager server covering environment variables, items, passwords, vaults, groups, and session status. Slightly on the higher side but well-scoped.
Completeness3/5
The server covers read and generate operations well, but lacks write operations (create, update, delete) for items, vaults, and groups. This limits full lifecycle coverage for a password manager.
Average 3.3/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 6, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It mentions the tool will fail if not enabled but does not disclose what happens on success, required permissions, or return format. Minimal behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is relatively short (three sentences) and avoids unnecessary text, but it is not front-loaded with core purpose and lacks clear structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a sensitive tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the tool's basic function, parameter usage, or return value, focusing solely on server configuration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about any of the 6 parameters (itemId, reason, fieldId, vaultId, reference, acknowledgePlaintext). The const value for acknowledgePlaintext is not explained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description does not explicitly state that this tool reveals a secret in plaintext. It focuses on server configuration and failure conditions, making the purpose vague and only implied by the name.
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?
The description provides negative guidance (when not to use and alternatives like restarting the server) but lacks positive guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like environment_reveal_variable or password_read.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that the tool will fail unless the server is restarted with specific flags, and that it returns secret plaintext (implied by the warning about not calling it for other purposes). It also explains the required acknowledgment parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single paragraph that is somewhat repetitive. It front-loads the failure condition but could be more concise by separating the core purpose from the prerequisites.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 required parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not state the purpose, explain parameters, or describe the return value, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 4 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description provides no explanation of what environmentId, name, reason, or acknowledgePlaintext represent or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose1/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description never states what the tool does. It only discusses its failure condition and provides workarounds. The name suggests 'reveal variable' but the description omits the core purpose.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises not to call this tool if the secret can be consumed by a command/script, and suggests an alternative (op_script_run) with setup instructions. However, it does not clearly state when it is appropriate to use this tool (e.g., when plaintext reveal is enabled).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It reveals one behavioral trait (client-side fallback when no vault), but omits critical details like read-only status, permission requirements, rate limits, or side effects. For a search operation, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very concise with two sentences, the first covering the core purpose. However, it sacrifices necessary detail, which limits its effectiveness despite the efficient structure.
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?
Missing output schema, no parameter explanations, and sparse behavioral context. For a tool with four parameters (including a limit), the description fails to cover pagination, return format, error modes, or the semantics of includeArchived. The agent would lack sufficient information to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (query, vaultId, includeArchived, limit). The mention of 'title/tags/category' hints at the query's role but is too vague to guide correct usage.
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 clearly states the action ('Search') and resource ('item overviews') and specifies search criteria (title/tags/category). This distinguishes it from items that retrieve a single item or vault-level operations.
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?
The description only mentions a behavioral detail about vault selection ('If no vault is provided, the server searches every visible vault client-side'), but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like password_read or item_get_metadata. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Get vault accessor permissions', implying read-only behavior but omits any details about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error states. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, no fluff. The second sentence provides optional context about the JS SDK beta, which, while not critical, adds useful information without being excessive.
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?
Given the simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal. It lacks details about return format, error conditions, or prerequisites, which are important for an AI agent to use the tool correctly. The absence of such context makes it incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'vaultId' has no description in schema (0% coverage). The description does not clarify its purpose, expected format, or how to obtain it, leaving the agent without essential guidance for correct invocation.
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 'Get vault accessor permissions' which clearly identifies the action (get) and resource (vault accessor permissions). It distinguishes from sibling tools like vault_get (vault details) and vault_list (list vaults) by specifying 'accessor permissions', though it assumes knowledge of the accessor concept.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like vault_get or item_get_metadata. The mention of 'JS SDK beta' hints at a specific context but does not provide explicit when/when-not criteria or exclude scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavior. It states listing vaults visible to the authenticated integration, implying read-only, but fails to mention whether results are paginated, any limits, or the effect of the decryptDetails parameter on output.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but it omits critical information about the parameter, making it too terse for effective use.
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?
Given one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain decryptDetails and the expected output format. It fails to do so, leaving significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the sole parameter decryptDetails, leaving its meaning entirely undefined. The description adds no value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List vaults visible to the authenticated 1Password integration,' which is a specific verb-resource combination that distinguishes from siblings like vault_get (single vault) and vault_permissions_get (permissions).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as vault_get for detailed single-vault info or vault_permissions_get for authorization details. The description lacks context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, what happens if vaultId is invalid, or what 'accessor permissions' entails. Minimal transparency.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action and resource. No extraneous words.
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?
Given the tool has no output schema, two parameters, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'vault details' includes or what the return format is. More context is needed for an agent to use it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names. It does not explain the format of vaultId or the default value for includeAccessors. No additional semantics provided.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'vault details', and the optional inclusion of 'accessor permissions'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vault_list (lists vaults) and vault_permissions_get (gets permissions) by specifying it retrieves details for one vault.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as vault_list or vault_permissions_get. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It labels itself as a 'read endpoint,' implying no side effects, but does not disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. Minimal transparency beyond the operation.
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?
Two sentences, each earning its place: the first defines the function, the second adds valuable context (uniqueness in the SDK). No unnecessary words.
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?
The description covers the tool's core purpose but lacks details on return values, error handling, and the meaning of the boolean parameter. For a simple get-by-ID tool, more is needed given no output schema and no parameter descriptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain the 'groupId' (format or meaning) or 'includeVaultPermissions' (purpose). The sole parameter information comes from the schema, which is unhelpful without descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get one group by ID', combining a specific verb with the resource. The second sentence distinguishes it as the only group read endpoint in the JS SDK beta, setting it apart from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when a group ID is known, but provides no guidance on when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool. Since it's the only group read endpoint, the context is straightforward, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the password is returned in plaintext and requires a reason and acknowledgment, which are important safety traits. However, it does not mention whether the password is stored or logged, or any post-generation behavior. With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility but only partially fulfills it.
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?
The description is extremely concise (22 words) and front-loads the core purpose in the first clause. The second clause efficiently lists requirements. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy.
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?
Given the tool has 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It omits details about optional parameters, return format, and side effects. The tool's moderate complexity demands more contextual information for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only references the required parameters 'reason' and 'acknowledgePlaintext' indirectly. The optional parameters (words, separator, capitalize, includeNumber) are not explained, despite the input schema providing no descriptions. This leaves the agent with incomplete understanding of how to configure the output.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a 'memorable passphrase-like password' and returns it in plaintext, distinguishing it from a generic password generator. The verb 'generate' and resource 'password' are specific, and the adjective 'memorable passphrase-like' clarifies the nature of the output.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'password_generate'. The description mentions requirements but does not explain context, exclusions, or preferred scenarios. Usage is only implied by the tool name and basic description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description discloses a critical behavioral trait: the password is returned in plaintext, which is important for security. It also mentions the need for acknowledgement, but does not cover other behaviors like whether passwords are stored or other side effects.
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?
The description is two sentences with no extraneous information. The key purpose and requirements are stated upfront, achieving maximal conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, security-sensitive, no output schema), the description is too brief. It does not explain the return format beyond 'plaintext', lacks details on parameter effects, and provides no information about error cases or storage behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description only mentions 'reason' and 'acknowledgePlaintext' but fails to explain the other 7 parameters (e.g., length, character sets), leaving their semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool generates a strong random password and returns it in plaintext, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'password_generate_memorable' (memorable passwords) and 'password_read' (reading existing passwords).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions 'for immediate use' and that a reason and acknowledgement are required, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives (e.g., using 'password_read' for existing passwords).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that values are redacted and filtering is client-side. However, it does not mention authorization requirements, rate limits, or behavior for invalid environment IDs or empty results.
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?
Two sentences, zero wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose and filtering capability, followed by a clear usage alternative. Ideal conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is mostly adequate for a simple list tool, covering purpose, redaction behavior, and an alternative use case. However, it lacks explanation of the 'environmentId' and 'limit' parameters, and does not describe the output format, which would be helpful given no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only explains that 'query' supports filtering by variable name. It does not clarify the 'environmentId' or 'limit' parameters, leaving the agent to infer their purpose from the schema names alone.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves environment variables with redacted values and supports client-side filtering by name. This distinguishes it from siblings like environment_get_variable (single variable) and environment_reveal_variable (reveals values).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises against using this tool when a secret is needed by a command or script, recommending op_script_run with envSecretRefs instead. However, it does not differentiate when to use this tool versus its direct siblings like environment_get_variable or environment_reveal_variable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations present, so description carries full burden. It mentions value redaction, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or behavior for missing variables.
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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff: first states purpose, second provides usage guidance.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity and self-explanatory parameters, the description covers purpose and a key behavioral trait (redaction), though missing error case details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not explain the parameters environmentId or name, relying on self-explanatory names but adding no additional context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets one environment variable by exact name with value redacted, distinguishing it from siblings like environment_get_variables and environment_reveal_variable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to prefer an alternative (op_script_run for secrets in scripts), but does not differentiate when to use this tool versus the sibling environment_get_variables.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses key behaviors: returns redacted metadata by default, plaintext reveal will fail, and script runner is disabled. It also provides context about server configuration for enabling script usage. However, it does not detail error conditions or side effects like logging.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose but becomes verbose, especially with the script runner configuration details, which could be condensed. It is structured but includes non-essential operational guidance that could be separated.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and 7 parameters (0 required), the description covers core behavior and limitations but lacks details on return values (beyond 'redacted metadata'), error handling, and parameter relationships (e.g., field vs. secretReference). It is adequate but leaves gaps for a complete understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'field', 'secretReference', and 'reveal' but provides no explanation for other required parameters like 'itemId', 'vaultId', 'reason', and 'acknowledgePlaintext'. The description adds minimal meaning beyond parameter names, leaving the agent underinformed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description begins with a clear verb and resource: 'Read one password field or secret reference.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly stating that plaintext reveal is disabled and that secret_reveal is not for this, and by noting that op_script_run is not available, which differentiates from script-based consumption.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit guidance on when to use (for reading metadata without plaintext), when not to use (do not request reveal if secret is for local script), and mentions an alternative (script runner configuration) and a limitation (script runner disabled). This fully informs agent decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states the tool returns provenance and fill status and does not return credential values. The read-only nature is implied by 'review' and 'list' but not explicitly stated, and no side effects are mentioned. Still, it provides good insight into the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key details. Every part is informative and there is no extraneous text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description explains what the tool returns (provenance and fill status) and its filtering (tag-based), but it does not cover pagination, ordering, or default behavior for the limit parameter. Given the absence of an output schema, more detail about the return structure would improve completeness.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with each parameter already described in the schema. The tool-level description does not add additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reviews placeholder items created by item_request_create with a specific tag 'mcp-managed'. It distinguishes itself by specifying what it returns (provenance and fill status) and explicitly what it does not return (credential values), making its purpose unique among sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains that the tool is for reviewing items created by item_request_create and tagged 'mcp-managed', providing clear context for when to use it. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the specificity of the tool's purpose and the mention of credential exclusion guide appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that the tool shows 'non-secret' information, indicating safety. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, or whether it is read-only. With no annotations, the description could be more thorough.
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 sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No unnecessary words; every part contributes to understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description is adequate for a simple read tool, but it does not explain the return format or how to interpret 'runtime capability gates'. With no output schema, more detail on expected output would improve completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description adds context about the tool's purpose beyond the empty schema, confirming it shows session state and capabilities.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'show' and the resource 'non-secret 1Password CLI session state and runtime capability gates', distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with environment variables, items, passwords, and vaults.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for checking session state and capabilities, which is unique among siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description accurately indicates a read-only informational operation, but with no annotations, it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as idempotency or side effects. For a simple informational tool, this is adequate.
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?
The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes a specific important detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what the tool does without requiring additional context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It adds value by explaining the tool's purpose beyond the empty schema, meeting the baseline for no-parameter tools.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to describe the server's capability surface and the preferred no-plaintext path for secret consumption. This distinguishes it from action-oriented siblings like secret_reveal or password_generate.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when an agent needs to know available capabilities or secure secret consumption practices, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses the critical behavioral trait that all field values are redacted. With no annotations, this is essential. Could mention if it's read-only or requires specific auth, but the redaction note is key.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. Purpose and guidance packed efficiently. Front-loaded with core function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema and simple parameters, description covers redaction and alternative tool, but lacks detail on what metadata is returned (e.g., field names, structure, or error handling). Adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain vaultId or itemId (e.g., format, origin, or typical usage). Parameter names are suggestive but not semantically enriched.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states 'Get item metadata' with the crucial qualifier 'with every field value redacted,' distinguishing it from secret_reveal which returns plaintext. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly tells when to avoid this tool and use secret_reveal instead ('only when plaintext is explicitly required'), providing direct alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![onepassword-mcp-codex MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kefapps/onepassword-mcp-codex/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kefapps/onepassword-mcp-codex)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![onepassword-mcp-codex MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kefapps/onepassword-mcp-codex/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/kefapps/onepassword-mcp-codex)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/kefapps/onepassword-mcp-codex'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server