vaultwarden_get_group_detailsRetrieves details for a single organization group, including its members and assigned collections, to inspect or manage access.
Get one group with members + collections
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| org_id | Yes | ||
| params | No | ||
| group_id | Yes | ||
| json_body | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral scope by saying the result includes both members and collections, but it does not mention permissions, org scoping, or other execution context.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action and returned scope immediately.
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?
The description states what is returned, but with five undocumented parameters and no output schema it leaves important invocation details unexplained. For this parameter surface, especially org_id versus group_id and the extra request fields, more context is needed.
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 description does not explain any of the five parameters. It implies that a group is identified but does not mention org_id, group_id, or the opaque form, params, and json_body fields.
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 specific verb and resource: get one group. It also clarifies the returned scope as including members and collections, which helps distinguish it from plain group lookup tools. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as get_group, get_group_members, or get_groups_details.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, despite many similar sibling tools. The phrase 'one group' implies single-group detail retrieval, but prerequisites and exclusions are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.