secrets_getFetch a secret's owner, kind, name, and current version by organization and secret ID; the secret value is never returned.
Returns a secret's owner, kind, name, and current version; the secret value is never returned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| orgID | Yes | Organization ID (org_...). | |
| secretID | Yes | Secret ID (sec_...). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / orgID / descriptionAdded value: +"Organization ID (org_...)."Input schema / properties / secretID / descriptionAdded value: +"Secret ID (sec_...)."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context the annotations cannot express: that the secret value itself is never returned, which is the single most important behavioral fact for an agent calling this.
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 carrying the return fields followed by the key exclusion clause; every clause earns its place and there is no filler.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the return contract, and it does so by enumerating the returned fields and explicitly ruling out the secret value. Only minor gaps remain, such as error behavior for an unknown secretID.
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 100% and both orgID and secretID carry their own format descriptions and patterns, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, scoping or format detail beyond what the schema already documents.
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 (returns) and resource (a secret), and enumerates exactly which fields come back (owner, kind, name, current version). It implies single-object retrieval but never names secrets_list as the contrasting alternative, so sibling differentiation is left implicit rather than stated.
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 singular 'a secret's ...' plus two required IDs implies lookup-by-identifier, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite guidance, and no routing to alternatives such as secrets_list for browsing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.