@aiwerk/mcp-server-vault

list_vault_items

Read-only

List vault item metadata from exposed or agent-created collections, without revealing secret values or note contents. Filter by item name or collection.

Instructions

List vault items from the mcp-exposed and mcp-agent-created collections. Returns metadata only. Secret values and note contents are NEVER included (has_notes says whether notes exist). Use reveal_secret_via_send to obtain the actual value through a secure Bitwarden Send URL.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_vault_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filter`	No	Case-insensitive substring filter on item names. Omit to return all items.
`collection`	No	Restrict to one collection. Omit to return items from both mcp-exposed and mcp-agent-created.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the description carries most of the behavioral burden. It does so well by disclosing that only metadata is returned, that secret values and note contents are NEVER included, and that has_notes indicates note existence — meaningful context beyond the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and what is excluded, then the redirect to the alternative tool. No sentence is wasted.

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?

With an output schema absent, the description compensates by describing the return shape (metadata only, has_notes field) and the security boundary. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the filter and collection parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or semantics beyond that, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (list vault items) and names the exact scope (mcp-exposed and mcp-agent-created collections), which an agent could not infer otherwise. It also implicitly separates itself from retrieval tools by declaring metadata-only output.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to reveal_secret_via_send when the actual secret value is needed, which is the key usage decision. It does not, however, clarify when to prefer this over the sibling get_vault_metadata, so the alternative coverage is partial rather than complete.

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

Deploy Server