vaultwarden_get_emailChecks whether email two-factor authentication is configured and can request a setup email for a Vaultwarden account.
Check whether email 2FA is set up / request setup email
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description says the tool may 'request setup email', which implies sending an email and therefore a side effect. That tension is not resolved, and nothing is said about authentication requirements, what gets sent, or side effects. Borderline but not a clean contradiction.
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 phrase with no filler, which is efficient. It is terse to the point of ambiguity, though the two-mode structure is at least visible at a glance.
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 three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and an unresolved read-versus-write ambiguity, an agent cannot confidently call this tool. It needs to know where the email address goes and whether invocation triggers a mail send.
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% and the three parameters (form, params, json_body) are untyped with no defaults explained. The description makes no attempt to say which of these carries the email address or how a setup request is expressed, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 names a concrete resource (email 2FA) but fuses two different operations into one phrase: checking status and requesting a setup email. It never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as vaultwarden_get_twofactor, vaultwarden_email, or vaultwarden_post_email, so the agent must guess which one to call.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative, even though several siblings (vaultwarden_get_twofactor, vaultwarden_disable_twofactor, vaultwarden_send_email) overlap in the 2FA/email space. The slash-separated phrasing hints at two modes but never states which condition selects which.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.