vaultwarden_get_public_keysRetrieve another user's public RSA key by user ID to enable encrypted sharing or verification in a Vaultwarden-compatible server.
Get another user public RSA key by user id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| user_id | 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the returned value is a public (not private) RSA key scoped to a different user, which is meaningful context. It says nothing about failure behavior for unknown ids or any visibility restrictions, so it stays at the baseline.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the key scoping come first. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, which is a completeness problem more than a conciseness one.
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 0% parameter coverage, no output schema, and three undocumented wrapper parameters, the definition does not give an agent enough to invoke this confidently. It needs at least a note on which parameters matter and what the response contains.
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 four parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it only clarifies user_id as the identifier input. The form, params, and json_body properties are entirely undocumented in both schema and description, leaving half the surface unexplained.
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: fetch a public RSA key belonging to another user, keyed by user id. That distinguishes it reasonably from vaultwarden_bulk_public_keys and vaultwarden_get_organization_public_key, though the differentiation is only implied by the singular 'another user' rather than stated outright.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., permissions needed to read another user's key), and no mention of the bulk or organization-key siblings it should be chosen over. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.