secrets_listView environment variables and secrets configured for a Lizard project or service; values stay masked unless reveal is enabled.
Use this when the user wants to see environment variables/secrets configured for a Lizard service or project. Values are masked by default; pass reveal:true to see actual values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reveal | No | ||
| project | Yes | ||
| service | No | Omit for project-wide (global) secrets |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds meaningful behavior: values are masked by default and reveal:true unmaskes them. It does not say whether revealing requires elevated permissions, whether the reveal is audited, or what the masked value looks like, so it stops short of 5.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the usage trigger front-loaded and the security-relevant masking default second. Every sentence earns its place.
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 3-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the two things an agent could get wrong: the reveal/masking behavior and the service-omitted-means-global scoping. Nothing essential to correct invocation appears missing.
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 only 33% (only `service` is documented), but the description compensates by explaining `reveal` semantics (masked by default, reveal:true for actual values) and, together with the schema note, the project-wide vs service-level scoping. It leaves `project` unexplained (required param, no format hint such as slug vs name).
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?
States a concrete verb+resource (view environment variables/secrets) scoped to a Lizard service or project, which cleanly separates it from secrets_set, secrets_delete and secrets_refs in the sibling list. It stops short of naming an alternative when the user wants references rather than values, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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?
"Use this when the user wants to see environment variables/secrets configured for a Lizard service or project" gives an explicit trigger condition tied to user intent. There are no when-not conditions or pointers to sibling tools for related intents, keeping it below a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.