List configured age encryption domains with their recipients, private-key counts, and decrypt/encrypt capability; private keys are never exposed.
List the key domains this server is configured with: their names, age recipients (public keys), how many private keys the server holds for each, and whether the domain can decrypt or only encrypt. Never returns private key material.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers meaningful behavioral context: it discloses exactly what the response contains and asserts the security-relevant guarantee that private key material is never returned. It stops short of stating auth requirements or explicitly labeling the operation as non-mutating.
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 sentence that front-loads the core purpose and appends the return-field breakdown and the no-private-key guarantee. Every clause adds information; 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?
There is no output schema, so the description must (and largely does) explain the return shape, covering domain names, recipients, key counts, and capability. Only minor gaps remain, such as permission prerequisites for an operator wondering whether they are allowed to call 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-arg tool is 4. No parameter-level ambiguity is introduced.
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 (List) and resource (key domains this server is configured with), then enumerates exactly what is returned: names, age recipients, private-key counts, and encrypt-vs-decrypt capability. The resource is clearly distinct from sibling list tools such as sops_list_secrets, so an agent can tell them apart without opening either schema.
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 never says when to call this versus alternatives (e.g., sops_list_secrets or sops_list_domains-style discovery before rotate/rekey operations), nor does it state any prerequisites. Usage is only weakly implied by the read-only verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.