vaultwarden_get_auth_requestCheck the status of a Vaultwarden authentication request by ID to track whether it is pending, approved, or denied during login or authorization flows.
Poll status of one auth request by id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| json_body | No | ||
| auth_request_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which fully covers the safety profile for polling. The description adds only that this polls status, without describing return behavior, authorization requirements, or eventual-consistency expectations beyond what the annotations imply.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action, the resource, and the lookup key.
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 simple read-only lookup, the annotations convey safety and idempotency, and the description states the core operation. However, with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves the three non-required parameters unexplained and does not clarify the relationship to the auth-request response siblings.
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, so the description must compensate. It explains only the auth_request_id parameter via "by id" and gives no meaning for the form, params, or json_body parameters.
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: poll the status of one auth request by id. It distinguishes the singular by-id operation from the plural list operations implicitly, but does not explicitly distinguish it from close siblings such as vaultwarden_get_auth_request_response or vaultwarden_get_auth_requests.
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?
The phrase "Poll status" implies the intended use case, so there is some usage guidance. However, it does not state when to use this instead of vaultwarden_get_auth_requests, vaultwarden_get_auth_requests_pending, or vaultwarden_get_auth_request_response, nor does it mention polling intervals or preconditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.