vaultwarden_get_diagnostics_httpTests HTTP echo behavior and returns a chosen status code, letting you verify response handling, request echoing, and error paths during Vaultwarden diagnostics.
Diagnostic HTTP echo/status-code test endpoint
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | No | ||
| 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=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that this is an echo/status-code test endpoint, but it does not describe authentication needs, rate limits, response shape, or what the four input fields actually cause.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler. However, it is too sparse for a tool with four undocumented parameters, so its brevity trades away completeness.
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 four parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no usage guidance, the description leaves an agent unable to confidently construct a call. The annotations cover safety, but the description does not compensate for the invocation and parameter gaps.
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% for all four parameters. The phrase 'status-code' weakly hints that code controls an HTTP status, and 'echo' hints that form/params/json_body are echoed payloads, but no parameter is meaningfully explained.
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 clear purpose: a diagnostic HTTP echo/status-code test endpoint. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from the closely related vaultwarden_get_diagnostics_config sibling or explain what 'get' returns.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this endpoint versus vaultwarden_get_diagnostics_config or other diagnostic/test tools. No prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative-tool routing are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.