vaultwarden_post_cipher_adminUpdates a cipher through the admin POST endpoint, letting administrators modify existing vault items by supplying the cipher ID and update fields.
Update a cipher via the admin path (POST alias)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| cipher_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=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that this is an admin-scoped alias, but does not disclose permission requirements or consequences of the update, leaving gaps 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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves little room for the guidance this tool needs.
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?
For a four-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions and no output schema, the description does far too little. It never explains what the body/form/params inputs should contain or what the admin path implies.
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% and all four parameters (form, params, cipher_id, json_body) are undocumented. The description only implies that a cipher is identified, giving no meaning for the form/params/json_body inputs, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 gives a specific verb (update) and resource (cipher) plus a scope qualifier (admin path / POST alias), which lets an agent distinguish it from non-admin siblings like vaultwarden_post_cipher and vaultwarden_put_cipher. It stops short of clarifying how it differs from vaultwarden_put_cipher_admin, so it isn't a 5.
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 phrase 'admin path' and 'POST alias' implies when this variant is used, but there is no explicit when/when-not statement or named alternative. Selection between the POST alias and the PUT variant is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.