vaultwarden_delete_cipher_selected_post_adminPermanently deletes selected ciphers in bulk through the Vaultwarden admin POST endpoint, enabling cleanup of multiple vault items in one request.
Bulk permanent delete via admin path (POST alias)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| 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 and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds genuine value by stating the deletion is 'permanent' and 'bulk', distinguishing it from soft-delete/archive paths, but it says nothing about required admin authorization, irreversibility confirmation, or response behavior.
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, front-loaded phrase with no wasted filler, but the terseness comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency; the fragmentary parenthetical reads like internal routing notation.
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 an irreversible bulk destructive operation with zero parameter documentation, no output schema, and dozens of near-identical siblings, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine the payload shape or confirm it is calling the correct admin POST variant.
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% and all three parameters (form, params, json_body) are generically named with no titles or descriptions. The only hint the description offers is 'bulk', implying a multi-ID payload, but it gives no syntax or format for identifying the selected ciphers.
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?
The description names a specific action (bulk permanent delete) and identifies the variant via 'admin path (POST alias)', which does distinguish it from the many other delete_cipher_selected siblings. However, it never clarifies what 'selected' means (e.g. a set of cipher IDs submitted in the body) or what is being deleted, leaving the resource only inferable from the name.
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 over vaultwarden_delete_cipher_selected, vaultwarden_delete_cipher_selected_put_admin, or the archive/restore siblings beyond the cryptic 'admin path' tag. The agent must infer admin scope and POST-vs-PUT semantics on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.