vaultwarden_purge_personal_vaultIrreversibly deletes all personal ciphers and folders for the calling account, clearing the personal vault. Use to wipe personal vault data before account reset or decommissioning.
Irreversibly delete ALL of the caller’s personal ciphers (and folders)
| 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 readOnlyHint=false, so the core safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuine value by stating the deletion is irreversible and total ('ALL'), including folders, which goes beyond the annotations. However, it says nothing about required permissions, whether a confirmation step exists, or whether the action can be scoped or undone.
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 short sentence with the destructive scope front-loaded ('Irreversibly delete ALL'). Zero filler and nothing buried.
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 an irreversible bulk-delete tool with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description covers the what and the permanence but leaves out call prerequisites and any recovery or confirmation details. It is adequate to know what will happen, not adequate to know how to invoke it responsibly.
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% across three parameters (form, params, json_body), and the description offers no information about them at all. Some of these are generic wrapper fields, but the description does nothing to compensate for the 0% coverage.
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/irreversibly delete), a specific resource (personal ciphers and folders), and the scope of impact ('ALL of the caller's'). The word 'personal' implicitly separates it from the sibling vaultwarden_purge_org_vault, so an agent can choose between the two without opening either 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?
The description never states when to use this versus alternatives such as vaultwarden_delete_cipher or vaultwarden_bulk_delete_organization_collections, nor does it set any precondition or confirmation requirement. Usage is only inferable from the word 'purge', which is very little guidance for an irreversible bulk operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.