Check where the secrets vault is stored and how many handles it holds, without exposing raw secret values.
Where the vault lives and how many handles it holds. No values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: this read returns metadata only and exposes no secret values. Beyond that it says nothing about permissions, whether the count is scoped to a workspace, or cost.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return content and closed by the 'No values' caveat, with no filler. The brevity edges into under-specification ('handles') rather than waste, which is why it is not a 5.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the zero-parameter surface is trivial. Still, the description leaves the core nouns ('vault', 'handles') vague enough that an agent cannot fully predict what the response means in a multi-tenant 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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter-level guidance is needed or missing.
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 conveys that this returns vault location plus a count of 'handles', and the terse 'No values' does distinguish it from list_secrets. However, there is no explicit verb (get/report) and 'handles' is unexplained jargon, so an agent must guess what the count actually represents.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the four secret-oriented siblings. 'No values' implicitly signals that list_secrets is the place to look for secret contents, but this routing is left for the agent to infer rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.