instabox-mcp

List org Secret metadata

instabox_list_org_secrets

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists an organization's secret names, delivery modes, allowed hosts, and versions without returning secret values. Use it to audit secret configuration for a specific org.

Instructions

List the names, delivery mode (proxy or env), allowed hosts and versions of an org's Secrets. Values are never returned. Get the org ID from instabox_whoami or a machine's orgId.

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": {
      "orgId": "<orgId>"
    },
    "name": "instabox_list_org_secrets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`orgId`	Yes	Org ID (org_...)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, and the description still adds real value: 'Values are never returned' prevents wasted attempts to read secret material, and it enumerates what metadata is returned. Ordering/pagination behavior is not mentioned, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the return-content scope followed by the key non-return caveat and the ID-sourcing hint. Nothing is redundant.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description covers what is listed, what is withheld, and how to get the ID. Only the shape of the response envelope (pagination, ordering) is left implicit, which is minor.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with a single required orgId, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by telling the agent where to source the org ID (whoami or a machine's orgId), which the schema only formats as 'org_...'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List ... an org's Secrets') plus the exact fields surfaced (names, delivery mode, allowed hosts, versions), which distinguishes it from the machine-scoped secrets siblings. An agent knows immediately this is an org-level metadata listing.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives a concrete prerequisite path for obtaining orgId ('instabox_whoami or a machine's `orgId`'), which is the main thing an agent could get wrong. It does not explicitly say when to prefer this over instabox_get_machine_secrets, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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