vaultwarden_delete_organization_collectionPermanently deletes a collection from an organization by org ID and collection ID. Use it to remove obsolete or unwanted collections from the Vaultwarden server.
Delete a collection
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| col_id | Yes | ||
| 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 covered. However, the description adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it does not say what happens to collection contents, 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?
At three words, it is obviously concise, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A destructive operation needs at least a short qualifier or warning, and none is present.
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?
Given a destructive delete tool with five parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and many sibling deletion tools, the description is materially incomplete. It does not explain what is deleted, what the required parameters mean, or what an agent should expect after invocation.
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% for five parameters, including required org_id and col_id, and the description says nothing about any parameter. It does not clarify which collection identifier is needed, what form/params/json_body are for, or how the organization scope is supplied.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a collection'), but it omits the organization scope implied by the tool name and required org_id parameter. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as vaultwarden_bulk_delete_organization_collections or other collection deletion endpoints.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites or permissions, and no indication of when to prefer a sibling bulk-delete or admin variant. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and annotations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.