vaultwarden_get_master_password_policyRetrieves an organization's effective master-password complexity policy so you can check required password rules before updating or enforcing credentials.
Get the effective master-password-complexity policy for the org
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| org_id | Yes | ||
| 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 this as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds some value by saying the policy is 'effective' for the org, implying a resolved or computed policy rather than a raw stored one. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or response shape.
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 is efficient, though it is arguably too sparse for a tool with four parameters and no schema descriptions.
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?
Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description leaves major gaps for a four-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema. It does not explain the non-obvious parameters or differentiate from closely related policy tools.
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%, so the description must compensate for four undocumented parameters. It only implicitly explains org_id via 'for the org' and says nothing about form, params, or json_body.
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 specific verb and resource: get the effective master-password-complexity policy for an org. That is clear enough to distinguish it from generic policy tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings such as vaultwarden_get_dummy_master_password_policy or vaultwarden_get_policy.
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?
The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or the sibling tools that retrieve related policy data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.