Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
keymaster-mcp

keymaster-mcp

by kiraa06
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

credential_types

Read-only

Lists supported credential types and identifies each type's main secret field, so agents can map credentials to the correct schema before lookup or injection.

Instructions

The supported credential types and the main secret field of each.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "credential_types"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that it returns the 'main secret field' of each type, but says nothing about the return shape or ordering. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but not rich.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the core content (types + secret field) is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the missing verb slightly weakens the lead.

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?

With no output schema and zero parameters, the description carries the full burden of describing the return value. It does state what comes back (supported types and their main secret field) but not the format or how the 'main secret field' is represented, leaving a gap for an agent deciding how to consume the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics for the description to clarify or omit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase ('The supported credential types and the main secret field of each') rather than a verb+resource statement, so it never says explicitly that it returns/lists anything. The resource is nonetheless identifiable, and it is distinguishable from credential-manipulation siblings like list_credentials or get_credential, but the lack of a verb leaves purpose slightly vague.

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?

There is no guidance about when to call this versus list_credentials, get_credential, or find_credentials, and no mention of prerequisites or typical workflow. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools