vaultwarden_get_auto_enroll_statusCheck if an organization auto-enrolls new members into password-reset admin recovery to verify enrollment status before managing recovery access.
Check whether org auto-enrolls new members into password-reset admin recovery
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| json_body | No | ||
| identifier | 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds the domain meaning (password-reset admin recovery enrollment) but says nothing about what the status value looks like (boolean vs enrollment policy object) or whether it varies per organization.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key object of the check appears immediately. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, so no penalty for verbosity.
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 tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to know what is being queried. However, it leaves the meaning of the required identifier and the shape of the returned status unexplained, which an agent needs to call it correctly.
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, and the description never mentions 'identifier' or what it should be (org ID, org name, email?). Since the schema provides no guidance, the description needed to compensate and does not.
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?
Names a specific verb ('Check whether') and a specific resource (org auto-enroll of new members into password-reset admin recovery), which is far more specific than the title. It doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling (e.g. get_policy or get_reset_password_details), but the domain object is clear enough to distinguish it.
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 alternatives such as vaultwarden_get_policy or vaultwarden_get_reset_password_details, and no prerequisites (admin auth, which org scope) are stated. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.