Skip to main content
Glama
privacyplaybook

sops-mcp

by privacyplaybook
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

sops_create_secrets

Create and encrypt secrets into SOPS YAML from generated, external, or derived sources. Returns encrypted content for disk storage.

Instructions

Generate and encrypt secrets as SOPS YAML. Returns encrypted content for the client to write to disk. Supports three sources: 'generated' (cryptographic randomness), 'external' (user-provided values), and 'derived' (computed from another key in the same file via a transform such as pbkdf2_sha512_authelia). Derived secret plaintexts are returned in the response so they can be copied into config files.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNoName of the key domain to encrypt to / decrypt with. Optional. Defaults to the domain recorded in the file's _meta_unencrypted block, and failing that to 'default'. Call sops_list_domains to see what this server has configured.
secretsYesList of secrets to create

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.11.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / domain
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Name of the key domain to encrypt to / decrypt with. Optional. Defaults to the domain recorded in the file's _meta_unencrypted block, and failing that to 'default'. Call sops_list_domains to see what this server has configured.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.10.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that encrypted content is returned for the client to write (the tool does not touch disk itself) and that derived secret plaintexts are exposed in the response. It omits auth/permission requirements and whether existing keys are overwritten, but the key behavioral traits are surfaced.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the disk-write caveat, followed by source enumeration and the plaintext-return note. Each sentence carries information, though the source list partially duplicates the schema enums.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly describes what is returned (encrypted content plus derived plaintexts). Given a rich input schema and no annotations, it covers the essential behaviors an agent needs, though it could say more about failure modes or overwrite semantics.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents every field including domain and the nested source/transform/length options. The prose restates the three source kinds but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Generate and encrypt secrets as SOPS YAML') and elaborates the three source modes, so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not, however, name or contrast any sibling such as sops_add_secrets or sops_update_external, leaving the create-vs-add boundary to inference.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It enumerates the supported sources but never states when to choose this tool over the several near-neighbors (sops_add_secrets, sops_update_external, sops_rotate_generated). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no routing guidance are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools