secrets_refsLists available reference-variable templates, such as Postgres connection strings, that you can inject into another service's secrets. Specify a project and optional service to view them.
Use this when the user wants to see the available reference-variable templates (like postgres connection strings) they can inject into another service's secrets.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | ||
| service | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is settled. The description adds useful framing that these are templates meant to be injected into another service's secrets. It does not say whether results are scoped or filtered by the project/service parameters, which matters behaviorally.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the usage cue first and zero filler. Nothing redundant, nothing padded.
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?
There is no output schema and no parameter documentation, so the description is the only place to explain what the returned templates look like and how project/service scope the list. It explains none of that, leaving an agent unable to predict the result set of a 2-param, low-coverage tool.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and it does not: neither 'project' nor the optional 'service' is mentioned. The phrase 'inject into another service's secrets' only faintly hints at the service parameter's role and never explains whether omitting it lists across all services.
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?
The description names a specific resource (reference-variable templates such as postgres connection strings) and distinguishes it implicitly from raw secret listing by framing these as injectable templates. It stops short of naming sibling secrets_list to make the boundary explicit, but an agent can tell what is returned.
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?
The 'Use this when the user wants to see...' clause gives a clear trigger condition, which is better than nothing. However, it offers no exclusions or alternatives — nothing says whether this replaces or complements secrets_list, or when to prefer secrets_list for actual secret values.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.