oneguard_vault_listList all vaults in your organization, returning each vault's 8-character ID prefix for use in other OneGuard tools, so you can identify containers where secrets are stored.
Lists every vault in the organization, with the 8-character id prefix that other tools accept as a vault argument. A vault is the container that secrets live in.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it specifies the output includes the 8-character id prefix and defines a vault as a container for secrets. This helps the agent understand what to expect without contradicting 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?
The description is exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and each sentence adds necessary information without redundancy. It avoids any filler or repetition, earning a perfect score.
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 read-only listing tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential information: it lists all vaults, explains the id prefix usage, and clarifies what a vault is. There are no missing prerequisites or expectations that would leave an agent uncertain about calling it.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description's mention of output format (id prefix) does not relate to parameters but is still informative. No deduction needed.
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 states a specific action (lists every vault) and resource (vaults in the organization), and adds the key detail that it returns the 8-character id prefix accepted by other tools. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like oneguard_secrets_list or oneguard_vault_add, which have different purposes.
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 its use when you need to enumerate all vaults or obtain their IDs, which is evident from the context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives (e.g., 'for secrets use oneguard_secrets_list'). The clarity of the operation makes this a minor omission, so a 4 is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.