vaultwarden_get_org_collection_detailRetrieves the details of a specific collection within an organization using its organization ID and collection ID.
Get one collection’s details
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| col_id | Yes | ||
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note on what is returned, permissions required, or visibility scoping for org collections.
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 no padding and the resource is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficient — the brevity costs needed information.
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 5-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves the agent without the identity of the required identifiers or what detail fields come back. It is not sufficient to call the tool correctly from the description alone.
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 all five parameters (including required org_id and col_id) are completely undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not even hint that an organization ID and a collection ID are required to identify the target.
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 verb (get) and resource (a collection's details), and 'one' implies single-item retrieval versus the list-oriented vaultwarden_get_org_collections. However it never says the collection is organization-scoped, leaving it hard to distinguish from vaultwarden_get_org_collections_details or vaultwarden_get_collection_users.
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 guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling collection/org tools; the only implied distinction is singular vs plural. No prerequisites (e.g. admin permissions) or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.