vaultwarden_get_org_collections_detailsLists collections in a Vaultwarden organization with per-collection access details, helping you audit or manage permissions across organization vaults.
List collections with per-collection access details
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description's 'per-collection access details' is close to a restatement of the title and adds little else — nothing about required org-admin permissions, whether all collections or a subset are returned, or response shape/pagination.
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 phrase, front-loaded with no filler. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than earning its brevity through precision.
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 tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and several near-identically named siblings, one line is not enough to call it correctly. The agent lacks the parameter contract and the disambiguation needed to choose this over its look-alikes.
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 four parameters (org_id, form, params, json_body) are completely undocumented, with org_id having no type or description at all. The description mentions no parameters whatsoever, leaving the single required identifier unexplained.
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 collections') plus a qualifier ('with per-collection access details') that distinguishes it from a bare collection listing. However, with siblings named vaultwarden_get_org_collections and vaultwarden_get_org_collection_detail, the description does not explicitly say how this 'details' variant differs from those.
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 instead of vaultwarden_get_org_collections or vaultwarden_get_org_collection_detail, and no prerequisites mentioned (e.g., that org-level access is likely required). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.