vaultwarden_get_org_eventsList audit-log events for a Vaultwarden organization to track activity and investigate security-relevant actions using the organization ID.
List audit-log events for an organization
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | No | ||
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no pagination behavior, event retention window, required role, or response shape for what is an open-world audit query.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Efficient, though its brevity stems partly from omission rather than tight writing.
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?
A 5-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and no annotations explaining the query surface. The description omits event filtering, pagination, and permission requirements an agent needs to call this correctly.
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% across 5 parameters, and the description only indirectly hints at org_id via 'for an organization'. It says nothing about data, form, params, or json_body, leaving four parameters entirely opaque.
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 and resource ('List audit-log events') with an explicit scope ('for an organization'), which distinguishes it from the sibling vaultwarden_get_user_events even though that sibling isn't named. Clear, but no explicit sibling differentiation in the text.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite (e.g. org admin rights), and does not mention alternatives such as get_user_events or get_cipher_events. The agent must infer selection from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.