Skip to main content
Glama

reachpad-mcp

by io.github.Reachpad

set_secret

DestructiveIdempotent

Set one organization secret, so a function can bind it by name in its manifest secrets list. Any member of the organization. Setting a name that already exists replaces the value and rotates it onto every published version that binds it. Answers the name, how many versions took the new value, and the ids of any that did not.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe environment variable name the function reads, for example STRIPE_SECRET_KEY. Letters, digits and underscores.
valueYesThe value. It is sealed on write: no tool returns it, this one included, and it is never written to a log or to this app's database. Ask the person to paste it themselves rather than repeating a key from earlier in the conversation.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses important behaviors beyond the annotations: setting an existing name replaces the value and rotates it onto every published version that binds it, and the response includes the name, count of updated versions, and ids of any that failed. This complements the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations without contradiction.

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?

The description is two sentences with no waste. It front-loads the core action, then adds permission scope, overwrite/rotation behavior, and the response shape. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and relevant annotations, the description is complete. It covers purpose, permission, overwrite consequences, rotation semantics, and return value shape. No critical gap remains for an agent to call it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including detailed semantics for value. The description adds the organizational context and the manifest-binding purpose, but it doesn't need to explain parameter syntax since the schema does. This meets the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Set one organization secret' and immediately explains the purpose ('so a function can bind it by name in its manifest secrets list'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like list_secrets and remove_secret by focusing on creation/update of a single named secret.

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?

The usage context is explicit: use this when you need to set a secret that functions can bind by name. It also states that any organization member can call it. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like list_secrets or remove_secret, but the 'set one secret' framing and sibling names make the appropriate use case clear.

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

All reachpad-mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

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.

Naming Consistency3/5

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.

Tool Count3/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources