vaultwarden_delete_cipher_postPermanently delete a vault cipher by its ID through the POST endpoint. Use it to remove obsolete, compromised, or unwanted secure items from Vaultwarden/Bitwarden-compatible storage.
Permanently delete a cipher (POST alias)
| 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' is the only behavioral detail and largely restates the destructive hint. Nothing is said about auth requirements, whether deletion is reversible, cascading effects on attachments/shares, or what the response looks like.
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 short phrase with zero waste and the essential verb+resource front-loaded. Its brevity is appropriate in form, though the tightness comes at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere.
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?
This is a destructive mutation with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and only default annotations. The description does far too little to prepare an agent for invoking it correctly, leaving key behavior and parameter usage unexplained.
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%, with four parameters (cipher_id required, plus unexplained 'form', 'params', and 'json_body'), and the description mentions none of them. With zero documentation in both schema and description, the agent gets no guidance on what form/params/json_body are for or how cipher_id should be formatted.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a cipher'. However, the parenthetical '(POST alias)' is the only differentiation effort, and it does not explain how this differs from the many sibling delete variants (vaultwarden_delete_cipher, delete_cipher_put, delete_cipher_selected, delete_cipher_admin, etc.). An agent cannot tell from this which delete to pick.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'POST alias' hints that it is an HTTP-method variant of another tool, but the description never tells the agent when the POST version applies or what distinguishes it from the DELETE/PUT siblings in the list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.