Vaultbeat MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Run diagnostics

vaultbeat_doctor

Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose this Vaultbeat MCP install to verify config, keypair, binding, and cloud access, then report which data types are empty, unavailable, or not yet checked.

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. A kind under kinds_not_checked could not be counted this run; it is neither empty nor full.

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.

binding — the local pairing state (which account, which server, whether demo mode is serving synthetic data). No keys or tokens.

This runs a cloud round trip, so it takes a moment.

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.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.1Oct 3, 2026
- addedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Added value: +false
```
First observedv0.8.1Sep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), yet the description adds substantial context: it performs a cloud round trip (latency warning), explains what each report section means, warns that a passing report does not clear the client side, and flags env_overrides_received as something to inspect. This is behavior the annotations cannot convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then cleanly sectioned with backticked field names (checks, capabilities, scope, binding). It is longer than typical, and some of the field-by-field explanation overlaps the output schema, but each section carries real diagnostic meaning rather than filler.

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?

For a zero-arg diagnostic with an output schema and strong annotations, this is complete: it covers when to call it, what each result section means, how to interpret empty vs unchecked kinds, and the limits of a green report. An agent needs nothing else to invoke and interpret it correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema carries no parameter semantics to compensate for; baseline 4 applies. The description's detail about the report shape describes outputs (also covered by the output schema) rather than adding parameter meaning.

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 (diagnose), an explicit resource (this Vaultbeat MCP install), and a concrete deliverable (which data types are unavailable). It is unambiguously distinguishable from the read/log siblings, which fetch data rather than test the install.

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?

Gives a precise trigger condition: 'Call this when a read tool returns nothing, or when anything fails, before telling the user their data is missing.' This routes the agent away from a specific failure mode. It does not name a particular sibling tool or state an explicit when-not, so it stops short of a 5.

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