remove_secretRemove one organization secret and delete it from every published version that binds it. A version the deletion did not reach keeps the name in the list with that version in failed, and running this again retries exactly those.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The secret name, from list_secrets. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, the description discloses what gets destroyed (the secret and its binding in every published version), how failures are surfaced (version kept in the list with status failed), and the retry behavior. This is exactly the context annotations alone would not provide.
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 compact, front-loaded with the core operation, and every sentence contributes meaningful behavior or failure semantics. There is no redundance or 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?
For a single-parameter destructive tool, the description explains the scope, failure state, and retry behavior, making it largely complete. It does not describe authorization requirements or the exact return format, but these are not critical for invoking the tool correctly.
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 schema already covers 100% of parameters and describes name as 'The secret name, from list_secrets.' The description adds no additional parameter semantic detail, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 action: remove one organization secret and delete it from every published version that binds it. This is a specific verb-resource pair that distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_secret and list_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 gives clear context for use: it removes an organization secret and handles partial failures by allowing the operation to be retried. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the intended usage is well implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools target clearly distinct actions and resources, such as app CRUD, versioning, sharing, secrets, and folder operations. A few adjacent tools like read_app, read_app_file, and read_app_version, or update_app and publish_app_version, require careful reading, but their descriptions are explicit enough to prevent serious confusion.
The set mostly uses a verb_noun pattern, with names like create_app, list_secrets, set_app_access, and trash_app. However, Unix-style commands like ls, mkdir, mv, tree, and whoami, plus mixed verbs such as get, read, list, remove, and revoke, break any single consistent convention.
24 tools is on the heavy end of the 16-25 range, and while the platform covers apps, versions, folders, sharing, secrets, logs, and databases, the count feels somewhat large. Each tool has a defined role, but several could potentially be consolidated without losing clarity.
The surface covers the main lifecycle well: creating, reading, updating, versioning, sharing, securing, and organizing apps, plus secrets and database queries. Notable gaps are the lack of a permanent delete or restore tool for trashed apps, and the stated absence of captured function logs, but these are workable limitations rather than dead ends.