Retrieve the names of secret keys configured for a service or the shared scope without exposing any secret values. Use it to audit which credentials exist before deploying or operating an app.
List a service's secret key names (values are never returned).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | Service (app, model or database) whose secret key names to read, or ``shared`` for the global scope, whose names any authenticated principal may read. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden; it usefully discloses that values are never returned, which sets expectations for the response. It omits read-only confirmation, authentication requirements, and the fact that the 'shared' scope is readable by any authenticated principal (only stated in the schema).
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 no waste; the security-relevant caveat is folded into the same sentence rather than padding it.
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 one-parameter read tool with a fully documented schema, the description supplies the essential behavioral note about returned values. Only auth/permission context is left implicit, which is a minor gap.
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 100% and the single 'service' parameter is documented in detail, including the special 'shared' value. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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 specific verb and resource ('List a service's secret key names') and adds the crucial scope qualifier that only names, not values, come back. It implicitly contrasts with set_secret/remove_secret, though it never names them or the 'shared' scope.
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 parenthetical implies this is the read-only inspection path for secrets, which is enough to infer when to call it. There is no explicit guidance on alternatives (e.g. use this before remove_secret, or that it covers the same 'shared' scope as the other secret tools).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.