vaultwarden_get_user_collectionsList all collections accessible to the current user across every organization, enabling AI agents to identify available vault collections before performing operations.
List collections the current user has access to (across all orgs)
| 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, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope context ('current user', 'across all orgs'), but says nothing about pagination, result size, or whether archived/inaccessible collections are excluded.
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 in a parenthetical scope clause; zero filler. Brevity is a strength here, though it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than crispness.
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?
As a read-only list tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the description covers the minimum. But with three undocumented parameters and no result-shape or filtering hints, an agent lacks enough to invoke it confidently versus the many collection-related siblings.
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 supplies no parameter meaning at all, so an agent gets no help on what to pass for a tool whose schema is 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?
Specific verb+resource ('List collections') with a scoping qualifier ('the current user has access to, across all orgs') that separates it from org-scoped siblings like vaultwarden_get_org_collections. It stops short of naming any sibling, so an agent must still infer the boundary.
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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named despite a dense cluster of near-neighbors (get_org_collections, get_org_collections_details, get_org_collection_detail, get_collection_users). The scope phrase implies the difference but never routes the agent explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.