Skip to main content
Glama

remove_secret

Delete a single secret key for a service, or omit the key to remove all secrets in that scope; use caution with shared keys that other apps reference.

Instructions

Delete one secret key, or all of a service's secrets when key is omitted.

    Deleting a shared key can break every app still referencing it via
    ``${secrets.shared.KEY}``.
    

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoThe one secret key to delete; omit it — null or an empty string — to delete ALL of the scope's secrets at once. Deleting a key that does not exist is a 404.
serviceYesService (app, model or database) whose secrets this call modifies — need not exist yet: a set on an undeployed name reserves it for this token until deployed — or ``shared`` for the global scope (set: unscoped submitter or admin; delete: admin), read by a service only where a ``${secrets.shared.KEY}`` reference is honoured (``ai``/``db``/``edge_auth`` refs, a git ``token_ref``), never via ``env``.
idempotency_keyNoCaller-chosen key: a retry with the same key replays the first result instead of acting twice. Omit and a fresh key is minted per call, so each call acts.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one real behavioral trait: deleting a shared key can break every app referencing it via ${secrets.shared.KEY}. It omits reversibility, permission requirements for the shared scope (documented only in the schema's service param), and whether omitted-key deletion is atomic.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the destructive branch. No filler.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description should carry more weight. It covers the main risk but leaves out permission requirements, irreversibility, and what a bulk delete returns — the schema fills some of this, but not all.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the key-omission semantics but adds no format or behavioral detail beyond what the schema already documents for key, service, and idempotency_key.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (one secret key, or all secrets for a service), and the scope distinction (single key vs. whole service scope) is spelled out. It is clearly separable from siblings like set_secret and list_secret_names.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'key omitted' branch clarifies which calling mode produces which effect, which is implied usage guidance. However, it names no alternative tool (set_secret for replacement, list_secret_names for discovery) and gives no explicit when-not-to-use condition beyond a consequence warning.

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