MCP server for LLM-Secrets that enables an LLM to write encrypted private thoughts
The server defines 3 tools with explicit schemas and basic descriptions. However, there are significant quality gaps: (1) tool names lack clear action verbs, 'analyze_privacy' and 'process_response' are vague about what state changes occur; (2) descriptions are too brief (10 - 30 chars) to guide LLM selection; (3) parameter descriptions are minimal and lack format/constraint guidance; (4) output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot plan downstream calls; (5) error handling is generic ('Error analyzing privacy') and does not guide recovery. The tools appear to be single-responsibility (good), but descriptions and schemas fall short of production quality. Naming conventions are inconsistent: 'analyze_' and 'process_' are weaker than action verbs like 'detect_' or 'extract_'. Per-tool scores range 45 - 55; average ~50.
Analyze text to determine if it contains private thoughts
Explicitly encrypt a thought
Process a response and return only the public portion
Tool descriptions are 10 - 30 characters, below the 50-200 character target for LLM-optimized guidance. They lack WHAT, WHEN, and WHY context needed for tool selection.
Output schemas are not documented. LLM cannot predict returned fields (publicOutput, privateThoughtsCount, storedThoughts, etc.). Forces guesswork and prevents downstream tool composition.
Parameter descriptions lack format, length, or constraint guidance. E.g., 'text' parameter in analyze_privacy has no mention of max length, encoding, or expected content type (free-form vs structured).
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | F | 40 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
Tool 'process_response' has WRITE side effects (encrypts and stores thoughts to disk) but description does not explicitly signal this. Violates pattern:command-tool requirement to declare state mutations.
Error handling is generic ('Error analyzing privacy: ${message}'). Does not classify errors as retryable/user-fixable/fatal, nor suggest recovery steps. Violates pattern:recovery-guide.
Tool naming conventions are inconsistent and weak. 'analyze_privacy', 'process_response', and 'encrypt_thought' use different action verbs. Better names: 'detect_private_thoughts', 'extract_public_output', 'encrypt_and_store_thought'. Generic verbs like 'process' and 'analyze' invite LLM confusion.