vaultwarden_get_contactsLists the people you have granted emergency access to as grantor, helping you review who can recover your vault.
List people the caller has granted emergency access to (as grantor)
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful semantic context that the listing is scoped to the caller as grantor, but says nothing about return format, pagination, or whether it includes pending vs. confirmed grants.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be trimmed without losing meaning.
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 read-only list tool the purpose is reasonably conveyed, but three undocumented parameters at 0% coverage and no output schema leave real gaps. The description doesn't tell an agent what the params do or what shape the contact list returns.
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?
Three opaque parameters (form, params, json_body) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description offers no explanation of any of them. With low coverage, the description should compensate but does not, leaving the agent unable to know what these fields control.
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 ('List') and resource ('people the caller has granted emergency access to') and clarifies the caller's role as 'grantor'. This distinguishes it from the inverse grantees concept, though the term 'contacts' in the name is less precise than the description body.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of the natural alternative (e.g., vaultwarden_get_grantees, which is the inverse relationship). The agent must infer the distinction from the 'as grantor' parenthetical alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.