vaultwarden_delete_cipher_adminPermanently deletes a Vaultwarden cipher through the admin REST DELETE endpoint by cipher ID, letting administrators remove unwanted vault items.
Permanently delete via admin path (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, readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The word 'permanently' reinforces irreversibility but adds little beyond that, and '(REST DELETE)' is implementation detail rather than agent-relevant behavior such as auth requirements or side effects on shared collections.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. But the terseness is under-specification rather than efficiency, given the many near-identical siblings it must be distinguished from.
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?
A destructive, four-parameter tool with zero parameter documentation, no output schema, and a large family of look-alike siblings requires far more context than one fragment. It leaves the agent without enough to invoke it confidently or reliably.
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, and only cipher_id is required. The description says nothing about cipher_id requirements or what the opaque form/params/json_body fields are for, so it fully fails to compensate for the schema 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?
It states the verb (permanently delete) and the distinguishing qualifier (via admin path), which separates it from the many non-admin delete_cipher siblings. However, the resource (a cipher) is only identifiable from the tool name, not the description text itself.
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 on when to use this admin-path delete versus vaultwarden_delete_cipher or the half-dozen other delete_cipher variants, nor any prerequisites (admin privileges, ownership). The agent must infer selection purely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.