vaultwarden_purge_org_vaultPermanently delete all ciphers from an organization's vault to clear its contents; use when you need an irreversible full purge of organization items.
Irreversibly delete ALL ciphers in an organization
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| json_body | No | ||
| organization | 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 readOnlyHint=false. The description earns credit for adding that the deletion is IRREVERSIBLE and covers ALL ciphers in the org, which sharpens scope beyond the generic destructive flag. It stops short of noting permission requirements or the blast radius for collections/members.
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 zero filler; the most critical fact (irreversible, ALL) leads.
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, org-wide operation with four undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should indicate how the organization is specified and any auth/permission preconditions an agent must satisfy before invoking an irreversible purge.
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?
Four parameters exist (form, params, json_body, organization) at 0% schema description coverage, and the description explains none of them. It only implies an organization target via the resource phrase, giving no format or identifier guidance.
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 (purge/delete), resource (all ciphers) and scope (in an organization), and the 'in an organization' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling vaultwarden_purge_personal_vault without needing to open its schema.
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 to use this versus vaultwarden_purge_personal_vault or the many per-cipher/collection delete tools, and no prerequisites (admin rights, org selection) stated. The reader must infer everything from the scope word 'ALL'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.