Vaultbeat MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Finish pairing (replaces this binding)

vaultbeat_poll_binding

Destructive

Checks whether the user scanned the QR code and authorized the server, returning pending, bound, or expired. Use it to decide whether to keep polling or stop and start a new binding.

Instructions

Check whether the user has scanned the QR code and authorized this server.

Call this after vaultbeat_start_binding. THREE possible status values:

· "pending" — the pairing is alive and simply has not been scanned yet. Keep polling with short delays. · "bound" — success. The server can now decrypt health data. · "expired" — TERMINAL. Stop polling; no amount of retrying recovers it. Run uvx vaultbeat-apple-health bind for a fresh QR code.

🔴 "pending" is positive evidence that nothing is wrong. The endpoint looks the pairing row up by pollID and answers "expired" when it is gone, so a long run of "pending" means the row is still there and nobody has scanned — NOT that it went stale while you waited.

That distinction decides what you tell the user, and getting it backwards is destructive: re-running bind mints a NEW pollID, which invalidates the QR they are looking at — so "just run bind again" turns a pairing that was one scan away from working into one that cannot complete. Only do it on "expired".

So while it stays "pending", the useful action is to get the code scanned, not to restart anything. Connecting is open on every plan, so there is no tier to check; the scanner is at Settings → Data & AI → "Connect an AI server". Do not send them to check the network, reinstall this server, or run diagnostics — none of those are implicated.

If they cannot see a QR code at all, it is your output that failed, not their phone — see vaultbeat_start_binding.

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 by explaining the semantic meaning of 'pending' as positive evidence, the endpoint's pollID lookup behavior, and the destructive consequence of rerunning bind. It also explains why a long run of 'pending' is not staleness, which is critical for correct agent behavior. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, uses a clear bulleted status list, and bolds the terminal condition. It is long, but every sentence earns its place by conveying diagnostic or action-guiding information that prevents a destructive mistake.

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 covers all statuses, terminal behavior, user-facing instructions, and the most likely misinterpretation. Since an output schema exists, not describing the return format is acceptable. The description is complete for safe and correct invocation.

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 explanatory burden. The description adds useful operational context (pollID lookup, statuses, polling behavior), but no parameter-level detail is needed.

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: 'Check whether the user has scanned the QR code and authorized this server.' It then defines the three possible statuses, making the tool's function concrete. It clearly distinguishes itself from vaultbeat_start_binding by saying 'Call this after vaultbeat_start_binding.'

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: call it after start_binding, keep polling while pending, stop on expired, and never rerun bind while pending. It also names the correct alternative for expired states and explicitly tells the agent what not to do ('Do not send them to check the network, reinstall this server, or run diagnostics').

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