vaultwarden_bulk_delete_groupsDelete multiple groups from a Vaultwarden organization in one operation by providing the organization ID. This bulk removal helps clean up or restructure access groups efficiently.
Bulk delete groups
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| org_id | Yes | ||
| params | No | ||
| json_body | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. However, the description adds nothing beyond the destructive framing — it does not say what 'bulk' means (selected IDs? all groups in org?), whether deletion is reversible, or what authorization is required.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three words, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness — there is no information to front-load. Nothing is wasted because nothing is said.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a destructive bulk mutation with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no annotation detail beyond the hint flags, the definition is wholly inadequate. An agent could not safely construct a call from this.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters, including the opaque 'form', 'params', and 'json_body' fields, and the description provides zero compensation. An agent cannot determine how to specify which groups to delete or what org_id format is expected.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this versus the numerous single-delete and other bulk-delete siblings. No prerequisites (org admin rights, group selection mechanism) are stated, leaving the agent to infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.