keyshade-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_secret

Create a new secret in a project by providing a name, entries with environment-specific values, and optional note or rotation schedule.

Instructions

Creates a new secret in a project

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "entries": "<entries>",
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>"
    },
    "name": "create_secret"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`note`	No
`entries`	Yes
`projectSlug`	Yes
`rotateAfter`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

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 'creates' which implies mutation, but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, conflict behavior, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 very short (one sentence, 6 words). While concise, it is too minimal and leaves out critical information. It could be expanded without being verbose.

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?

With 5 parameters, 3 required, a nested array, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what a secret is, how entries work, the significance of rotateAfter, or what the tool returns.

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%, so the description must compensate. However, it provides no explanation of any parameter (name, note, entries, projectSlug, rotateAfter). The meaning of entries (environmentSlug and value) is left entirely to the schema.

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 tool creates a new secret in a project. It uses a specific verb-resource pair. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like update_secret or rollback_secret, but since those are distinct operations, the purpose is clear.

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 update_secret or rollback_secret. There is no indication of prerequisites or scenarios where creation is appropriate.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.