Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
handshake-mcp

handshake-mcp

by zeroai-tech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

handshake_put

Store or update a credential in the encrypted vault during an active session. Supply the session token, name, value, and optional note/category to persist the entry.

Instructions

Store or update one credential. Requires an open session token.

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": {
      "session": "<session>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "value": "<value>"
    },
    "name": "handshake_put"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
noteNo
valueYes
sessionYes
categoryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the session-token requirement and that the operation can create or update, but does not explain overwrite semantics, permissions, return value, or idempotency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences with no wasted words; the key auth requirement is front-loaded and the operation is described clearly. Might be slightly richer with more behavior detail, but the prose itself is well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a 5-parameter write operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, so the description needs to carry more weight. It omits return behavior, overwrite semantics, and parameter details, leaving an agent under-informed for reliable invocation in varied cases.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description only hints at session/name/value ('credential', 'session token'), leaving note and category unexplained. The parameter names are somewhat self-evident, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Store or update') with a clear object ('one credential'), making the operation's purpose unmistakable. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling read/list/status/log tools.

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?

The phrase 'Store or update one credential' implies a write operation distinct from handshake_list/get/log, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or scenarios are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools