Self-destructing secret sharing for AI agents: encrypted burn links for credentials, plus an agent-to-agent dead-drop with exactly-once claim semantics. RAM-only, no database, open source (MIT). Source: https://github.com/mmmpym/flashpaper
Immediately purge a Flashpaper secret vault from RAM using its destroy token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vaultId | Yes | The vault UUID. | |
| destroyToken | Yes | The destroy token. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states the action (purge from RAM) and the required mechanism (destroy token), making the destructive nature evident. It doesn't cover edge cases like invalid tokens or success responses, but the core behavioral trait is transparent.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence delivers all essential information without any waste. Key terms are front-loaded ('Immediately purge', 'destroy token'), making it easy for an agent 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?
For a two-parameter destructive action with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what happens, to what, and how. It doesn't describe return values or failure modes, but for this simple tool, that's an acceptable gap.
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 input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (vaultId and destroyToken), so the description adds little beyond reinforcing their role. Schema coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline for this dimension.
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 uses a specific verb 'purge' and names the exact resource ('Flashpaper secret vault') and mechanism ('destroy token'), making the tool's function unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like create_secret_burn_link and check_secret_status by focusing on immediate destruction.
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 clearly conveys this is for immediate destruction using a destroy token, implying a distinct use case from checking status or claiming secrets. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Check status of a Flashpaper secret vault without revealing or burning it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vaultId | Yes | The vault UUID. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the operation does not reveal or burn the secret, which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not mention return format, permissions, or other side effects.
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?
A single, focused sentence that states the action and key constraint without any fluff.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description clarifies the non-destructive nature, but it does not describe what the status output contains or any prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity for an agent.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with vaultId described as 'The vault UUID,' so the schema already provides full parameter information. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb 'check' with resource 'status of a Flashpaper secret vault' and explicitly disambiguates from siblings by stating 'without revealing or burning it,' which contrasts with burn_secret_immediately and claim_secret.
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?
It implies the appropriate use case (inspecting status without destruction) via the 'without revealing or burning' clause, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, so a clear context with no exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim and burn a secret deposited by another agent. Returns plaintext exactly once. A 404 means it was already consumed — treat that as a possible interception signal. Agents must use POST /api/agent/vault/:id/claim — never fetch the /secret/ HTML page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | The base64url decryption key. | |
| vaultId | Yes | The vault UUID to claim. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key behaviors: returns plaintext exactly once, 404 means already consumed (possible interception), and the burn side-effect. It does not cover all error cases or auth requirements, but the most critical traits are transparently stated.
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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds critical information (action, return semantics, error handling, endpoint preference). No redundant or filler content.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema and annotations, the description covers return behavior, one important error condition with security implications, and the correct HTTP method. It omits other potential errors (e.g., wrong key, nonexistent vault) but is reasonably complete for a simple two-parameter tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for both parameters (key and vaultId), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, mentioning the endpoint but not the parameters directly.
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 and resource: 'Claim and burn a secret deposited by another agent.' It also specifies the unique one-time return behavior, distinguishing it from siblings like burn_secret_immediately or check_secret_status. This is a specific, well-differentiated purpose.
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 clear context for when to use this tool (when needing to claim a secret) and gives explicit usage instructions, such as using POST /api/agent/vault/:id/claim and never fetching the HTML page. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other scenarios, but the guidance is sufficient for most agents.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Encrypt confidential API keys, passwords, or credentials into a self-destructing link.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agentName | No | Name of the issuing AI agent (e.g. "Cursor AI Assistant", "Claude Desktop Agent"). | |
| secretText | Yes | The secret text, API key, or credential to encrypt. | |
| webhookUrl | No | Optional HTTPS webhook URL to receive notification when secret is claimed/revealed. | |
| burnTrigger | No | Burn condition or expiration duration. | 1_view |
| agentPurpose | No | Purpose or context of secret generation (e.g. "Database Credential Provisioning"). | |
| antiScreenshot | No | Enable anti-screenshot spotlight lens protection. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the link self-destructs, but omits key behavioral details such as burn triggers, claim behavior, webhook notifications, and anti-screenshot protection. The schema exposes these options, but the description doesn't synthesize them.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, target, and result efficiently; every word earns its place.
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?
With 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the one-line description is thin on operational context. It implies a link is returned but doesn't explicitly state the return value or how it fits into the claim/check/burn workflow. The schema covers parameters, but higher-level guidance is missing.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions already fully document each field. The description adds modest value by giving example secret types (API keys, passwords, credentials) and implying burnTrigger via 'self-destructing', but it doesn't clarify optional parameters like webhookUrl or antiScreenshot.
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 uses the specific verb 'Encrypt' and identifies the resource ('API keys, passwords, or credentials') and outcome ('self-destructing link'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings that burn, check, or claim secrets.
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 clearly implies this tool is for creating a secure self-destructing link, and sibling names make the division of labor obvious. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
burn_secret_immediatelycheck_secret_statusclaim_secretcreate_secret_burn_linkClaiming proves that you control a remote MCP connector. It does not move, proxy, or interrupt the server.
Open the connector listing, choose Claim ownership, and sign in to Glama.
Complete one verification method:
GitHub identity — fastest for official registry listings. For a namespace such as io.github.alice/server, link the matching GitHub user, then choose Claim with GitHub. An organization namespace such as io.github.acme/server also needs that organization to have installed the Glama AI GitHub App and approved its permissions, because GitHub discloses organization membership only to apps it has installed. Use HTTP or DNS when it has not.
HTTP challenge — works when you can deploy a public file. Generate a token, publish the exact JSON Glama shows at /.well-known/glama.json on the same origin as the connector, then choose Check HTTP challenge.
DNS challenge — works when you control DNS but cannot change the server. Generate a token, create the exact TXT record Glama shows, wait for it to propagate, then choose Check DNS challenge.
After verification, Glama sends a confirmation email and gives you access to listing details, thumbnails, health checks, and analytics. Keep the HTTP file or DNS record in place: Glama periodically checks it and ownership remains verified while the token is discoverable.
The HTTP ownership file has this structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"claim": "glama_claim_..."
}Claim tokens are opaque, stable, and bound to the signed-in Glama account. They contain no email address or other personal information. If Glama can no longer discover a verified HTTP or DNS token, it starts a seven-day grace period before removing claim-based access. Restore the same token during that period to keep ownership verified. Never publish an email address, Glama session token, GitHub token, or connector credential as ownership proof.
If verification fails, confirm that you copied the current token exactly. The HTTP file must be public, return valid JSON with a successful HTTP response, and stay on the connector's origin. DNS changes may need more time to propagate. A claim cannot transfer to a different origin or hostname: if the connector target changes, Glama starts the grace period and the new target must be claimed separately after the previous claim is released.
For a connector linked to the official MCP Registry, registry updates continue to replace its name, description, and URL by default. After claiming, open Manage connector and enable Use Glama listing details as the source of truth if edits made on Glama should be preserved. Categories and thumbnails are always managed on Glama; registry linkage and technical connection settings continue to sync.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
To improve your MCP server's ranking:
Claim ownership of the server listing
Complete the server profile with an accurate description and thumbnail
Provide a test profile so Glama can connect to and evaluate the server
Keep tool definitions clear and complete to earn a high Tool Definition Quality Score (TDQS)
Route real usage through the Glama Gateway; more recorded successful server uses also improve the ranking
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct operation: create, claim, burn, and check status. Although claim and burn both result in destruction, their contexts (deposited secret vs. own vault) are clearly separated by the descriptions.
All tools follow a consistent verb-first snake_case pattern (burn, check, claim, create). Minor variance in adverb/noun composition does not harm recognizability.
With 4 tools, the set is well-scoped for a focused one-time-secret service. Each tool covers a necessary part of the lifecycle without redundancy.
The lifecycle is fully covered: create, claim (read+consume), burn (destroy), and status check. No obvious missing operations for a one-time secret vault.