secrets_getRetrieve a stored secret using its organization ID and secret ID through ownership authority, enabling authenticated access to protected values.
Get secret through ownership authority
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | ||
| secretID | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The phrase 'through ownership authority' weakly hints at a permission precondition but is too cryptic to count as disclosed behavior; nothing about error cases (missing/unauthorized secret) is given.
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?
It is a single six-word phrase with the verb+resource front-loaded, so nothing is padded. However, it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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?
A two-required-param getter with 0% schema coverage and no output schema leaves an agent without parameter meaning or return expectations. Rich annotations cover the safety side, but the description does not fill the remaining gaps.
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% for both params, so the description carries full responsibility to explain orgID and secretID. It says nothing about either parameter; only the schema's regex patterns hint at their format. This is a clear compensation gap.
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 verb+resource ('Get secret') is clear, but the qualifier 'through ownership authority' is opaque jargon that doesn't clarify scope or distinguish it from siblings like secrets_list or grant_secrets_list. An agent can recognize it retrieves a secret, but the mechanism phrasing adds confusion rather than precision.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives named. With both secrets_list and grant_secrets_list among the siblings, the description should route the agent, but it offers nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.