vaultwarden_post_organizationUpdate organization settings through a POST alias by providing the organization ID plus optional form, params, or JSON body.
Update organization settings (POST alias)
| 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=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating mutation: it does not say what settings can change, what happens to unspecified fields, or what permissions the caller needs.
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 single sentence is front-loaded and free of filler, but its brevity is under-specification rather than economy for a four-parameter mutation tool with an opaque body payload.
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?
With 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and four opaque parameters including a free-form json_body, the description carries nearly no information. An agent cannot construct a correct request from this definition alone.
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, org_id, params, json_body) are typeless and undocumented. The description names no parameter and gives no hint about what belongs in json_body versus the form/params objects, so an agent gets zero guidance on the actual call shape.
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 verb and resource ("Update organization settings") plus an ambiguous tag "(POST alias)". The alias note hints at a relationship with the PUT/GET organization siblings, but an agent cannot confidently tell whether this is the canonical update path or a compatibility duplicate of vaultwarden_put_organization.
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 parenthetical "(POST alias)" implies an alternative endpoint exists, but it never says when to choose this over vaultwarden_put_organization, vaultwarden_organizations, or vaultwarden_get_organization. No prerequisites or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.