vaultwarden_get_org_detailsRetrieve organization-scoped ciphers with each item's collection memberships, so you can audit access and organize vault entries.
Get org-scoped cipher listing with per-cipher collection membership
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| 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, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the note that results include per-cipher collection membership; it does not say what organization must be in scope, whether results are paginated, or whether admin rights are required for org-wide listing. No contradiction with annotations, but thin added value.
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 fragment with no waste, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than genuinely concise. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the resource name, and no second sentence is spent on the information the agent actually needs.
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, no annotation gaps filled by prose, and a name/description mismatch, the definition is not complete enough to call reliably. Only the high-level safety profile comes from annotations.
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?
Four parameters (data, form, params, json_body) exist with 0% schema description coverage and no titles beyond generic placeholders, and the description says nothing about any of them. Nothing tells the agent which parameter carries the organization identifier or the request body shape, so the parameter layer is completely undocumented.
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 resource (org-scoped ciphers) and a specific output attribute (per-cipher collection membership), but it directly conflicts with the tool's own name and title, 'Get org details'. An agent reading the name and the description cannot tell whether this returns organization metadata or a cipher listing, which is a serious ambiguity in a family of ~200 siblings.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. With near-identical siblings such as vaultwarden_get_organization, vaultwarden_get_org_collections, vaultwarden_get_org_collections_details and vaultwarden_get_cipher_details, the agent is given nothing to distinguish this tool from them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.