Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@AgentVault MCP Server get my Stripe API key from the prod vault"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
The official open-source client for AgentVault — the API-first password/secrets manager for AI agents. An agent gets a real vault, stores secrets encrypted at rest, and fetches exactly one credential at runtime via an av://vault/secret/field reference under a scoped, revocable token.
This package is MIT-licensed. The AgentVault server (vaults, AES-256-GCM encryption, scoped-token issuance, audit) is a Vektra Industries product.
pip install agentvault-sdk # or: uv pip install agentvault-sdkRelated MCP server: Kova Mind MCP Server
from agentvault_sdk import AgentVaultClient
av = AgentVaultClient("https://vault.example.com", token="av_...")
av.create_vault("prod")
av.put_secret("prod", "stripe", {"api_key": "sk_live_..."})
# fetch one secret at runtime — no hardcoded keys
key = av.resolve("av://prod/stripe/api_key")Expose AgentVault tools to any MCP-capable agent over stdio:
export AGENTVAULT_URL=https://vault.example.com
export AGENTVAULT_TOKEN=av_...
agentvault-mcpTools: av_create_vault, av_put_secret, av_get_secret, av_resolve, av_list_secrets, av_issue_token, av_rotate_secret.
© 2026 Pablo Navarro / Vektra Industries. MIT.
Create a new vault.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description is the sole source of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects (e.g., vault creation is a persistent mutation), permissions required, error conditions (e.g., duplicate vault names), or any operational context. This is a bare action statement with no transparency.
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 one short, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it borders on under-specification rather than conciseness. The structure is straightforward and front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 lightweight parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is still incomplete. It omits when to use it, behavioral details, and parameter semantics. An agent would have to infer critical context from the tool name alone, making the description insufficient for reliable invocation.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. The single 'name' parameter is never explicitly explained; the description only implies through context that 'name' is the vault's name. No additional meaning, format, constraints, or uniqueness requirements are provided.
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 'Create a new vault.' directly states a specific verb (create) and resource (vault), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that operate on secrets or tokens. This is an unambiguous and focused purpose statement.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions. It only states the action, leaving the agent without context for when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the decrypted field map of a secret.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| vault | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'decrypted', indicating that secrets are stored encrypted, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, if it has side effects, or requires specific permissions. This is a significant gap for a secret retrieval tool.
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 a single concise sentence, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized. While every word is useful, it omits critical information that would require a longer description to convey effectively.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return format, usage context, or how to identify the secret. More detail is needed for an agent to invoke this 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 input schema has two required parameters (vault, name) with zero description coverage, and the description does not explain their roles. The phrase 'of a secret' implies the secret name, but 'vault' is not defined. The description adds no value over the schema in helping the agent understand parameter semantics.
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 'Get' and a specific resource 'decrypted field map of a secret', which clearly indicates a read operation. It distinguishes from siblings like av_put_secret and av_create_vault, though 'field map' is slightly ambiguous and could be clearer.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Mint a scoped Agent Access Token (requires admin token).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| vaults | No | ||
| secrets | No | ||
| permissions | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the admin token requirement, which is useful, but it does not disclose that this is a security-sensitive creation action, whether the token can be revoked, its lifecycle, or any side effects. For a token minting tool, significant behavioral context is missing.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning, and it efficiently communicates the core action and a key prerequisite.
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 has 4 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The description, while clear on purpose, is far too terse to enable correct invocation: an agent cannot infer the format or meaning of the parameters, the return value, or security nuances. Given the security-sensitive nature of token issuance, this incompleteness is a significant 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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that 'scoped' relates to permissions, but it does not explain the meaning or purpose of 'name', 'vaults', 'secrets', or 'permissions'. This is a minimal hint that does not adequately compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation.
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 ('Mint') and identifies a clear resource ('scoped Agent Access Token'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling vault/secret management tools. It also adds a prerequisite ('requires admin token'), reinforcing its unique function of token creation.
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 implies usage for issuing agent access tokens and notes the admin token requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling names make the distinction obvious, but the description itself offers no direct comparison, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List secret names in a vault.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| vault | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'list' which implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state safety, authentication needs, what happens if the vault does not exist, or pagination behavior. The description is too minimal to inform the agent about important behavioral traits.
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 a single concise sentence with no redundant information. It earns its place by clearly stating the tool's action and scope, with zero 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 simple tool with one parameter, the description is mostly adequate. It specifies what is listed (secret names) and where (vault). However, it does not mention the return format, error behavior, or prerequisites, and the lack of an output schema means the description could have added a bit more detail about the response. Still, it is far from incomplete.
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 has one required parameter 'vault' (string) with no description. The description references 'in a vault', which maps to this parameter and adds meaning that the list is scoped to a vault. However, it does not explain the format, allowed values, or how to specify the vault (e.g., name vs. path). Given the low schema description coverage, the description partially compensates but not fully.
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 tool's function: listing secret names within a vault. The verb 'list' and resource 'secret names' are specific, and the scope 'in a vault' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_secret (retrieve a single secret) and put_secret (write a 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?
The description conveys the tool's purpose (list secrets) but does not explicitly provide when-to-use guidance or mention alternatives. However, the context of sibling tools (get_secret, put_secret) implies this is for enumeration, and the phrase 'list secret names' clearly indicates it is not for retrieving values. This is clear context without exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Create or update a secret (name + field map) in a vault.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| vault | Yes | ||
| fields | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects. It states the action (create/update) but does not explain whether existing fields are overwritten, merged, or rejected, nor any authentication or vault-creation requirements.
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 a single, focused sentence with no wasteful words. It is appropriately brief for the level of detail it provides.
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 has three required parameters including a nested object, and no annotations or output schema. The description fails to cover prerequisites, return values, or edge-case behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's context.
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 0%, so the description should clarify each parameter. It only mentions 'name + field map', leaving 'vault' and the full nature of 'fields' under-specified. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names.
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 phrase 'Create or update' with a clear resource ('a secret') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like av_get_secret and av_list_secrets. It also clarifies the payload as 'name + field map', which aligns with the schema.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as av_rotate_secret or av_create_vault. There is no mention of prerequisites like the vault needing to exist or when update vs. create is applied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Resolve an av://vault/secret/field reference to a single value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reference | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or authorization requirements. It only states the result, leaving behavioral assumptions unspecified.
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 sentence with no filler. It earns its place by conveying the input format and output expectation clearly.
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?
While the purpose and parameter format are clear, the description omits usage context (when to choose this over av_get_secret) and behavioral details such as error handling or read-only nature. Given no annotations or output schema, this is only minimally complete.
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 only declares 'reference' as a string with 0% description coverage. The description adds semantics by giving the exact URI pattern (av://vault/secret/field), which is crucial for constructing the parameter correctly.
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 ('Resolve') and a specific resource type ('av://vault/secret/field reference'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like av_get_secret which fetch secrets directly.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives. The description implies usage when a reference needs to be dereferenced, but does not mention exclusions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Rotate (replace) a secret's value.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| vault | Yes | ||
| fields | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation replaces the value, implying mutation, but provides no details on versioning, whether it requires the secret to exist, or any side effects. This is minimally informative.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no filler. It earns high marks for brevity, though it is somewhat underspecified for the operation's details.
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?
Given the tool has three required parameters including a nested object and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks information about return values, error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., whether the secret must already exist), and the exact semantics of the fields parameter.
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 0%, and the description does not explain the meaning of the three parameters (vault, name, fields) beyond the schema's minimal type definitions. The phrase 'a secret's value' hints at fields but does not clarify the structure expected for the fields object.
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 (rotate/replace) and target (a secret's value), providing a straightforward purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling av_put_secret, which likely also modifies secrets, so it loses the fifth point.
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?
No guidance on when to use rotate versus put, or any context for when rotation is appropriate. The description only states what it does, not when to use it.
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.
v0.1.0av_create_vaultav_get_secretav_issue_tokenav_list_secretsav_put_secretav_resolveav_rotate_secretWhile av_get_secret and av_resolve both retrieve secret data, av_get_secret returns the full field map while av_resolve targets a specific field via reference. av_put_secret and av_rotate_secret are similarly distinct (create/update vs. replace). The purposes are mostly clear, though the boundary between get/resolve and put/rotate could momentarily confuse.
The av_ prefix is consistent, and most tools follow av_<verb>_<noun> (create_vault, put_secret, get_secret, list_secrets, issue_token, rotate_secret). The verb style is uniform, but 'av_resolve' lacks an explicit object, a minor deviation.
With 7 tools, the set is well-scoped for a vault management server, fitting the typical 3-15 range. Each tool addresses a distinct operation without redundancy or bloat.
The server covers the core lifecycle of vaults and secrets: create, read, update, list, rotate, and token issuance. However, there is no delete operation for vaults or secrets, which could be considered a gap for complete lifecycle management, though it may be intentional for security.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Shared long-term memory vault for AI agents with 20 MCP tools.
A secret store for AI agents: the agent never sees the plaintext.
Zero-secret MCP gateway for AI agents: risk-scored, audited calls with human-in-the-loop approval.
Encrypted secret store and rotation for autonomous agent credentials
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/PabloTheThinker/agentvault-sdk'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
