vaultwarden_get_auth_request_responsePoll an authentication request anonymously for approval and retrieve its encrypted key once approved, enabling agents to complete Vaultwarden login flows.
Anonymous poll for approval + encrypted key once approved
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | ||
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral context beyond that: calls are anonymous (no session), and the payload differs by state – nothing sensitive until approved, encrypted key afterwards. It stops short of describing the polling cadence or the actual response shape.
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?
Only one short fragment, so nothing is wasted, but it is an under-specified phrase rather than a front-loaded sentence with a clear subject. Brevity here costs information rather than buying clarity.
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?
With no output schema, 5 undocumented parameters, and no explanation of the response states beyond a passing 'encrypted key once approved', the description leaves too much for an agent to guess about a non-obvious asynchronous approval flow.
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 5 parameters and the description mentions none of them. The required auth_request_id is only inferable from the tool name, and code/form/params/json_body are completely unexplained in either the schema or the description.
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 fragment 'Anonymous poll for approval + encrypted key once approved' hints at a polling endpoint returning a key after approval, but never states the verb+resource (get the response for a given auth request). An agent has to infer the capability from the tool name and the sibling pair get_auth_request / put_auth_request, which the description does not reference.
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?
'Poll for approval' implies a repeated-call/until-approved pattern, which is a slice of usage guidance, but there is no statement of when to call this instead of vaultwarden_get_auth_request or after vaultwarden_put_auth_request, and no prerequisites or termination condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.