vaultwarden_get_policyRetrieve a specific organization policy by its type and organization ID to inspect configured Vaultwarden or Bitwarden policy settings.
Get one policy by type
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| org_id | Yes | ||
| params | No | ||
| pol_type | Yes | ||
| 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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond 'one policy by type' and does not mention auth requirements, behavior for missing policies, or org scoping, making 3 the minimum viable score.
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 phrase with no wasted language. However, it is too terse for a five-parameter tool and omits structure that would help an agent understand scope and invocation requirements.
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?
With five parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the definition relies almost entirely on a four-word description. Annotations cover the safety profile, but the description does not supply enough context about org scoping, policy type values, or alternatives to list_policies.
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 five parameters, and the description only partially clarifies pol_type via 'by type'. It does not explain the required org_id or the roles of form, params, and json_body, leaving most parameter semantics 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get' and 'policy'. The phrase 'one policy by type' distinguishes single-policy retrieval from sibling list-style tools such as list_policies, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_policies, list_policies_token, or policy update siblings. The phrase 'by type' implies a lookup pattern, but there are no conditions, exclusions, or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.