Skip to main content
Glama
ni-c

woodpecker-ci-mcp

by ni-c

Update a secret

update_secret
DestructiveIdempotent

Update an existing CI/CD secret by modifying only the supplied fields; pass a new value to rotate it, and replace events or image restrictions with the complete list.

Instructions

Changes a secret. Only the fields you pass are touched — but "events" and "images" are replaced wholesale, not merged, so pass the complete list. Passing "value" rotates the secret.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesSecret name, stored case-sensitively — MY_TOKEN and my_token are two secrets.
noteNoFree-text note shown next to the secret in the web UI.
scopeYesWhich level to act on. "repository" needs repo_id, "organization" needs org_id, and "global" is instance-wide and needs neither (admin only). A pipeline sees the repository level first, then the organization, then global.
valueNoNew value. Omit it to leave the value alone.
eventsNoReplaces the event list entirely. Pass every event that should apply.
imagesNoRestrict the secret to these container images. An empty list — the default — means every image may read it.
org_idNoRequired when scope is "organization".
repo_idNoRequired when scope is "repository".
confirm_tokenNoRequired when passing "value", when adding a pull_request event, or when clearing "images"; narrowing the exposure and changing the note apply on the first call.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
truncatedNoPresent only when the answer was shortened to fit the budget.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: partial updates, wholesale replacement of events and images, and rotation semantics for value. These are non-obvious mutation behaviors that the agent needs to know, and they align with destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true.

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?

The description is only two sentences, front-loads the core behavior, and every sentence carries critical information. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a mutating tool with 9 parameters, the description plus the fully documented schema covers the important semantics: partial updates, replace-not-merge behavior, rotation, and scope requirements. An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. Missing explicit routing guidance is the main gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

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 adds extra semantics for value (rotates the secret) and for events/images (replaced wholesale, pass complete lists), which goes beyond the schema's field-level wording without duplicating it.

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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: it changes an existing secret. It is unambiguous as an update operation and is distinguishable from siblings like create_secret and delete_secret, though it does not explicitly name those alternatives.

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 description implies when to use it: when you need to modify an existing secret while leaving unspecified fields intact. However, it gives no explicit guidance about when to use create_secret instead, when a secret should be deleted, or when get_secret should be called first.

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

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ni-c/woodpecker-ci-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server