sops-mcp

sops_list_secrets

List key names and metadata from a SOPS-encrypted file without decryption, reading from encrypted YAML and the _meta_unencrypted block.

Instructions

List key names and metadata from a SOPS-encrypted file. No decryption needed — reads key names from encrypted YAML and metadata from the _meta_unencrypted block.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "encrypted_content": "<encrypted_content>"
    },
    "name": "sops_list_secrets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`domain`	No	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.
`encrypted_content`	Yes	Contents of a secrets.enc.yaml file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.11.0Sep 14, 2026

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"
+}

First observedv0.10.0Jun 11, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one genuinely useful behavior — no decryption is required and key names come from encrypted YAML while metadata comes from the _meta_unencrypted block. It says nothing about permissions, error behavior on malformed files, or how the optional domain affects the read.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation and followed by the key distinction (no decryption). Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what is returned (key names and metadata) and the mechanism. Minor gaps around the domain parameter's effect and failure modes remain, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the domain default fallback chain and the pointer to sops_list_domains. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List key names and metadata from a SOPS-encrypted file.' An agent can distinguish this from mutating siblings (sops_add_secrets, sops_delete_secrets) and from sops_list_domains by the resource named. It does not explicitly name which sibling is the alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the 'No decryption needed' clause signals this is the inspection path when you only need to see what keys exist. However, no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or named alternatives to other list/inspect siblings are given.

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

Deploy Server