Vaultbeat MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Run diagnostics

vaultbeat_doctor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose this Vaultbeat MCP install to identify broken bindings and missing data types. Reports on config, keypair, cloud reachability, decryption, capabilities, and client-side scope.

Instructions

Diagnose this Vaultbeat MCP install, and report which data types are unavailable.

Call this when a read tool returns nothing, or when anything fails, before telling the user their data is missing. Two distinct things come back:

checks — the install/binding chain: config present, keypair usable, binding valid, cloud reachable, a real record decryptable end to end. A failure here means the setup is broken, not that data is absent.

capabilities — which metric kinds actually have data, and which empty ones are explained by an older iOS app (with the release date each needs). An empty kind is NOT proof the user never recorded it: their app may predate the feature entirely.

scope — what this report does NOT cover. Everything here can pass and the setup still be broken on the client side: this server is a subprocess of your MCP client, so it cannot read the client's config file, cannot see which environment variables the client forwarded, and cannot tell whether it was launched with the arguments the user believes. A green report never clears the client. scope.env_overrides_received lists which Vaultbeat variables actually arrived — check that before guessing at the client's environment.

This runs a cloud round trip, so it is slower than vaultbeat_status (local config only) — prefer status for a quick liveness check.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.1Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, disclosing that the tool performs a cloud round trip, that it is slower than the local-only status tool, and that its report has three distinct parts: checks, capabilities, and scope. It also transparently explains the tool's limitations—it cannot inspect the client's config, environment variables, or launch arguments—and warns that a green report does not clear the client. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone would not provide.

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?

Although the description is long, it is efficiently structured with clear sections for `checks`, `capabilities`, and `scope`, and each sentence adds distinct value. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the later paragraphs elaborate without redundancy. The length is justified by the nuance required to prevent false conclusions about missing data.

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?

The description is complete for a diagnostic tool of this complexity: it explains the trigger conditions, the output structure, the meaning of each result section, the limitations, and the relationship to the sibling status tool. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, but the description still provides enough context for an agent to interpret the results correctly. Nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter burden and the description need not explain any. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and nothing in the description contradicts or complicates that. The description even clarifies what the tool does not cover, which is more than necessary for parameter semantics.

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: 'Diagnose this Vaultbeat MCP install, and report which data types are unavailable.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by contrasting it with `vaultbeat_status` and by framing it as the diagnostic tool to run when reads fail. This is more than a restatement of the title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states exactly when to invoke: 'Call this when a read tool returns nothing, or when anything fails, before telling the user their data is missing.' It also names an alternative (`vaultbeat_status`) and gives the preference rule: use status for a quick liveness check because doctor is slower. This is explicit, actionable guidance.

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