vaultwarden_post_foldersCreate a new folder in your Vaultwarden vault to organize and group ciphers. Use it to structure credentials by category, project, or client for easier navigation.
Create a folder
| 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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what happens on duplicate folder names, what auth or premium/org scope is required, or what is returned. For a mutation tool, this is thin.
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?
Three words are technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than economy: nothing is front-loaded because nothing is there. The description earns no explanatory weight.
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 endpoint with three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description leaves the caller unable to construct a correct request. Only the annotations carry any behavioral signal.
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 the three properties (form, params, json_body) are generic names with no descriptions, defaults beyond null, or types. The one-line description supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever, so an agent must guess where the folder name actually goes.
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 verb and resource ('Create a folder'), so the basic action is clear, but it gives no scope or qualifier to distinguish it from the many near-identical siblings such as vaultwarden_post_folder, vaultwarden_put_folder, and vaultwarden_folders_create_folder. An agent cannot tell which folder-creation endpoint to pick from this text alone.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (personal vault vs organization context), and no mention of alternatives. With a dozen sibling folder and creation tools in scope, the absence of any routing hint is a real gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.