oneguard_vault_addCreate a vault to contain secrets and receive its ID for immediate use in your organization.
Creates a new vault in the organization and returns its id. A vault is the container that secrets live in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name of the new vault. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns an id and explains the vault concept, which is useful context, but it does not disclose side effects, permissions, or failure behavior. Minimal extra value beyond annotations.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The action and return value are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides necessary domain context without redundancy.
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 simple creation tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and return value. It does not mention uniqueness or permission requirements, but these are not critical for an agent to call it correctly. Slightly more context (e.g., uniqueness) could be added, but current coverage is adequate.
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%: the only parameter 'name' has a clear description. The tool description adds no additional constraints, format, or meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 description uses a precise verb ('Creates') and resource ('a new vault'), and clarifies what a vault is ('container that secrets live in'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like vault_list and vault_rename. The purpose is unambiguous.
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 description implies when to use the tool (when you need a container for secrets) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or state when not to use it. No exclusion or routing to other vault tools is provided, so usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.