list_sections
Retrieve all section titles from your secrets vault to organize and access stored information efficiently.
Instructions
List all section titles in the secrets vault
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Retrieve all section titles from your secrets vault to organize and access stored information efficiently.
List all section titles in the secrets vault
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the return format looks like (e.g., list structure, pagination). This leaves significant gaps for agent understanding.
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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'list all section titles' entails—such as the return format, ordering, or any limitations. For a tool with no structured behavioral data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context.
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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't add parameter details, earning a high baseline score for not introducing unnecessary information.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all section titles in the secrets vault'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_section' or 'search_secrets', which prevents a perfect score.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_section' (for a specific section) or 'search_secrets' (for searching within sections). It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/sealca/secrets-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server