keymaster-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_credentials

Read-only

List stored credential metadata—names, types, usernames, URLs, aliases, tags, and policies—to see what logins, passwords, API keys, or SSH keys exist. Filter by type or tag when needed.

Instructions

List every stored credential (metadata only — names, types, usernames, URLs, aliases, tags, policies). Use this to answer "what creds / passwords / logins / keys do you have?". Optionally filter by type or tag.

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": "list_credentials"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tag`	No
`type`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. The description earns credit by adding that only metadata is returned (names, types, usernames, URLs, aliases, tags, policies) — a meaningful disclosure that no 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three compact sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical field list is dense but justified given it defines the metadata-only scope.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description enumerates the returned metadata fields, and annotations cover safety. For a zero-required-parameter read tool this is close to complete; only filter-combination behavior is left unspecified.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It states both filters are optional and names them (type, tag), but adds nothing about tag matching semantics or whether the two filters combine with AND/OR.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List every stored credential") and sharpens it with a scope qualifier ("metadata only") that separates it from a secret-revealing fetch. It doesn't explicitly contrast with the nearest sibling, find_credentials, so an agent could still hesitate between the two.

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?

Gives a clear triggering intent ("answer 'what creds / passwords / logins / keys do you have?'") and notes the optional type/tag filter. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, but the use case is unambiguous.

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