vaultwarden_delete_cipherPermanently deletes a cipher from a Vaultwarden or Bitwarden-compatible vault via REST DELETE, removing the stored credential or secure note by its cipher ID.
Permanently delete a cipher (REST DELETE)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| cipher_id | Yes | ||
| 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 and readOnlyHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds 'Permanently', meaningfully clarifying that this is not a soft-delete to trash, which is useful context beyond annotations. It does not mention auth requirements or irreversible side effects beyond the single word.
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?
A single concise sentence with the key 'Permanently' qualifier front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification given the namespace complexity.
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 mutation with no output schema and 0% parameter documentation, the description is too thin. It doesn't explain the cipher_id parameter or the mystery form/params/json_body parameters, nor how this differs from its many siblings, leaving an agent under-equipped to call it correctly.
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 4 parameters (cipher_id, form, params, json_body), and the description says nothing about any of them. With three undocumented optional parameters and no explanation of cipher_id format, the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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?
Clear verb+resource ('delete a cipher') with 'Permanently' and '(REST DELETE)' specifying the method, which partially distinguishes it from the _post/_put siblings. However, it does not distinguish it from the many other delete variants (delete_cipher_admin, delete_cipher_selected, etc.), leaving ambiguity in a crowded namespace.
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?
No guidance on when to use this vs. the numerous sibling delete variants, nor any mention of softer alternatives like vaultwarden_ciphers_move_to_trash or the archive tools. No prerequisites or auth requirements are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.