vaultwarden_get_plansList available subscription plans from a Vaultwarden/Bitwarden-compatible server to compare options before selecting or managing a plan.
List available subscription plans
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say whether plans are subscription tiers, what audience/admin role is needed, or whether the result is stable/cached.
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 five-word sentence, front-loaded and waste-free. It is arguably too terse rather than bloated, but structurally there is nothing to trim.
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?
No output schema, no parameter documentation, and no annotation-independent explanation of what a 'plan' is in this system. For a tool sitting next to several billing and maintenance-plan siblings, the definition leaves too much for the agent to guess.
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?
Three parameters with 0% schema description coverage and generic names (form, params, json_body). The description gives no hint about what payload these accept or whether they can be left null, leaving the agent with no compensating information.
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 available subscription plans'), which is clear enough to act on. It doesn't disambiguate from billing-related siblings (get_billing_metadata, get_billing_warnings) or from maintenance-plan tools (maintenance_plan_deduplication), so 'plans' remains slightly ambiguous in this namespace.
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 call this versus the billing metadata or maintenance plan tools, no prerequisites, no exclusions. The agent must infer usage 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.