vaultwarden_get_granteesList the people who have granted you emergency access as a grantee, helping you identify your emergency access grantors.
List people who have granted the caller emergency access (as grantee)
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing beyond purpose — no note on whether the list is scoped to the authenticated user, whether it requires an unlocked session, or how many results come back.
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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the parenthetical qualifier reads awkwardly enough that it takes a second pass to parse.
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, zero-required-parameter list call with strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate about purpose. It is incomplete on the opaque request-wrapper parameters and gives no hint of what fields the grantee entries contain, which matters since there is no output schema.
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 parameters exist (form, params, json_body) with 0% schema description coverage and default null, so the description carries the compensation burden. It says nothing about what any of them do, leaving the agent to guess whether filtering or pagination is even possible.
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+resource ('List people who have granted the caller emergency access') and disambiguates the direction of the relationship with '(as grantee)', which separates it from grantor-side tools like vaultwarden_get_emergency_access. The phrasing is slightly convoluted, but an agent can determine the resource returned without opening the schema.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives named, despite several emergency-access siblings (vaultwarden_get_emergency_access, vaultwarden_view_emergency_access, vaultwarden_policies_emergency_access) that an agent could easily confuse with this one. The only implicit signal is the 'grantee' parenthetical.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.