vaultwarden_emergency_access_send_inviteInvite a user by email to become your emergency contact, granting them designated access to your vault in an emergency.
Grantor invites another user (by email) as emergency contact
| 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 readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates state and reaches outside the system. The description adds only the 'by email' mechanism and the actor role ('grantor') — it does not say that an email is actually dispatched, what happens to pending invites, or what permissions/plan the grantor needs.
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 compact sentence with no filler and the actor/mechanism front-loaded. It is terse almost to the point of under-specification, but nothing in it is wasted.
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 mutation tool with no output schema and three undocumented parameters, the description is too thin: it omits the multi-step flow (invite → accept → confirm → approve/takeover) and any statement about what a successful call produces or requires. An agent could invoke it but not confidently.
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 three opaque parameters (form, params, json_body), and the description only hints that an email address is needed without mapping it to any parameter or indicating where the contact email/access level goes. It does not compensate for the documentation 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?
States a specific verb and resource: a grantor inviting another user by email as an emergency contact. This is clearly distinguishable from the invitee-side sibling vaultwarden_emergency_access_accept_invite, but the description never names siblings explicitly.
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 versus vaultwarden_initiate_emergency_access, vaultwarden_confirm_emergency_access, or vaultwarden_organizations_send_invite. No prerequisites stated (grantor must be an existing user, likely a premium/plan-gated feature, and the invitee must not already be a contact).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.