Skip to main content
Glama
privacyplaybook

sops-mcp

by privacyplaybook
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

sops_delete_secrets

Deletes specified keys from an existing SOPS-encrypted file, removing encrypted values and _meta_unencrypted entries while rejecting deletion of keys required by other secrets.

Instructions

Delete one or more keys from an existing SOPS-encrypted file. Removes both the encrypted value and the _meta_unencrypted entry. Rejects deletion of keys that other derived secrets depend on unless those dependents are also in the delete list. Requires a private key for the domain.

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.
key_namesYesKeys to delete
encrypted_contentYesContents of an existing secrets.enc.yaml file

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 well: it discloses that both the encrypted value and the _meta_unencrypted entry are removed, that dependent derived secrets block deletion unless included, and that a private key for the domain is required. It stops short of stating whether the operation is irreversible or what is returned on partial failure.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the destructive and dependency semantics. No filler, though the dependency sentence is slightly dense.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the destructive effect, dependency rejection rule, and authentication requirement. It lacks only return-value or failure-mode detail, which is a minor gap given the schema's completeness.

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 domain, key_names, and encrypted_content are already well documented, and the schema itself points to sops_list_domains. The description adds only the implicit tie between the private-key requirement and the domain parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (keys in an existing SOPS-encrypted file), which is clearly distinct from sibling operations like add, create, rename, and rekey. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to disambiguate against, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as sops_add_secrets or sops_rename_secret, nor any prerequisite context beyond the key requirement. Usage must be inferred from the verb.

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