vaultwarden_post_ciphers_createCreate a new vault cipher and optionally assign collections in the same request, simplifying credential setup on a Vaultwarden-compatible server.
Create a cipher, optionally assigning collections in the same call
| 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?
The annotations already declare that this is a non-read-only mutation with destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that collections can be assigned during creation, but it does not cover permissions, side effects, or failure behavior.
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 sentence with no wasted wording. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a create operation with ambiguous input parameters.
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 mutation tool with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many sibling create tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It provides the basic purpose but leaves the agent without enough information to call the tool correctly.
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?
The schema has three generic parameters, form, params, and json_body, with 0% description coverage and no required fields. The description only vaguely mentions collections and does not explain how any of these parameters should be populated or which fields belong where.
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 states a specific verb and resource: create a cipher. It also mentions an optional collection-assignment capability. However, it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as vaultwarden_post_cipher or vaultwarden_ciphers_create_item.
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 implies usage for creating ciphers, especially when collections should be assigned in the same call. It gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the many sibling create/update tools and does not state prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.