vaultwarden_list_policiesRetrieve all policies configured for an organization to review its access and security rules; pass the organization ID to get the policy list.
List all policies configured for the org
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety behavior is covered. The description adds only that results are org-scoped and 'all' policies are returned (no pagination or filtering mentioned); it says nothing about permission requirements or return shape, so it adds limited value beyond the annotations.
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 short sentence with zero waste and the key scoping information front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than being genuinely informative.
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?
There is no output schema and four undocumented parameters, and the description does not say what a policy object contains, whether results are paginated, or what permission level is required. For an org-admin listing endpoint this leaves meaningful gaps an agent would need to fill by trial.
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 4 parameters, but the description does imply that org_id identifies the target org. The generic wrapper parameters (form, params, json_body) are left completely unexplained in both schema and description, so the description only partially compensates.
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 all policies') scoped to an org, so the agent knows exactly what it returns conceptually. However, it does not distinguish itself from near-siblings such as vaultwarden_list_policies_token or vaultwarden_get_policy, leaving the agent to guess which one to call.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. admin/owner permission needed to read org policies), and never names an alternative such as vaultwarden_get_policy for a single policy. Usage must be inferred 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.