Skip to main content
Glama

ainote

by io.github.seunghan91

env_sync.secret_pull

Read-onlyIdempotent

Pull an encrypted secret blob. Response is ciphertext_b64 only — server never sees and never returns plaintext.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aliasNo
node_idNo
device_idNoOptional calling device id for audit attribution. The X-Ainote-Device-Id header is the canonical source; this argument is the backwards-compatible fallback for clients that predate the header. If both are sent and disagree, the request is rejected (DEVICE_MISMATCH).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / $schema
      Added value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / device_id
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional calling device id for audit attribution. The X-Ainote-Device-Id header is the canonical source; this argument is the backwards-compatible fallback for clients that predate the header. If both are sent and disagree, the request is rejected (DEVICE_MISMATCH).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds critical behavioral context: 'Response is ciphertext_b64 only — server never sees and never returns plaintext.' This privacy/security trait is not captured in the annotations and is essential for the agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence followed by a brief clarification. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's core function and response behavior. No unnecessary details or repetition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the essential purpose and response format, which is especially important given no output schema. However, it lacks guidance on parameter selection (node_id vs alias) and does not mention the device_id fallback. This leaves some ambiguity for a tool with a oneOf schema and partially documented parameters.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description provides no information about the node_id, alias, or device_id parameters. With schema description coverage at only 33%, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent without clarity on which identifier to use or the role of device_id.

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 clearly states the tool's action: 'Pull an encrypted secret blob.' The verb 'Pull' is specific and the resource is described, distinguishing it from sibling tools like secret_push and secret_rotate. It also adds the response format, further clarifying its role.

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 description implies use for retrieving encrypted secrets without exposing plaintext, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like secret_push or secret_rotate. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving usage mostly implied.

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

All ainote 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools clearly target distinct resources (tasks, docs, graph, sync, env_sync, handoffs, judgments, projects, vault). A few pairs could confuse, like sync_push vs vault_sync (which has a push action) and env_sync_write vs env_sync_txn_push, but descriptions mostly clarify boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are predominantly snake_case with a noun_verb pattern (e.g., sync_push, task_write), but there are notable inconsistencies: plural/singular mismatches (dev_docs_read vs dev_doc_write, tasks_read vs task_write), verb-first names (list_papers, get_setup_guide, judgment_submit), and a dotted sub-namespace (env_sync.secret_pull) mixed with flat names (env_sync_txn_push).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface for a personal note/sync server. While it spans many domains (auth, tasks, docs, sync, env_sync, graph, etc.), the sheer number feels heavy and likely overwhelms agents with too many choices, especially when several tools are consolidated sub-action surfaces.

Completeness3/5

Most domains have reasonable CRUD coverage (tasks, dev docs, graph, sync, env_sync, vault). However, noticeable gaps exist: memory has no write tool (only read), papers only support listing (no create/update/delete), assumptions have write but no dedicated read or delete, and judgment is effectively submit-and-list only.

Resources