vaultwarden_get_organization_keysRetrieve an organization's public key and, when authorized, its encrypted private key to enable secure vault operations.
Get the org’s public key + (if authorized) encrypted private key
| 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 the operation as read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context that the encrypted private key is returned only if authorized, but it does not detail what authorization is needed or anything else about the sensitive return behavior beyond that conditional.
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 filler. Every phrase contributes to the core purpose and the conditional authorization behavior.
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?
The description gives a clear sense of what is returned, including the conditional private key, which helps offset the absence of an output schema. However, with 0% schema parameter coverage and no explanation of form, params, or json_body, it is not complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool robustly.
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 the description does not explain the four schema parameters (form, org_id, params, json_body). It only implies that an organization identifier is needed via 'the org's,' leaving the remaining parameters 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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving an organization's public key plus, conditionally, its encrypted private key. It meaningfully distinguishes this from public-key-only siblings such as vaultwarden_get_organization_public_key, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.
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 only usage-related signal is '(if authorized),' which hints at a permission condition but does not explain when to choose this tool over related tools like vaultwarden_get_organization_public_key or vaultwarden_get_public_keys. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.