vaultwarden_post_delete_recover_tokenCompletes account deletion by submitting the emailed recovery token, verifying ownership before the account is permanently removed.
Complete account deletion using emailed token
| 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 destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description's phrase 'Complete account deletion' mainly reinforces irreversibility. It adds the fact that an emailed token is the authority mechanism, but says nothing about what happens on an invalid or expired token, or whether the response returns any state.
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, but it is undersized for a destructive three-parameter endpoint rather than genuinely tight. Nothing is wasted, yet important detail is absent.
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 destructive account-deletion endpoint with no annotations covering the token semantics, no output schema, and entirely undocumented parameters, one nine-word sentence leaves the agent without enough to call it 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?
Three parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only hints that a token exists without saying which of form/params/json_body carries it or what fields those containers expect. The description does not compensate for the documentation 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?
States a specific verb and outcome ('Complete account deletion') plus the required credential ('emailed token'), which separates it from vaultwarden_post_delete_recover and vaultwarden_post_delete_account. It never names those siblings, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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 guidance on when this tool should be chosen over the many neighbouring delete/recover endpoints, and no prerequisites such as where the token comes from or that it must still be valid. The agent must infer the call sequence 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.