vaultwarden_put_cipher_adminUpdates an existing cipher through the Vaultwarden admin path, allowing administrators to modify cipher details or JSON data by cipher ID.
Update a cipher via the admin path
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| params | No | ||
| cipher_id | Yes | ||
| 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 disclose that this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds only the 'admin path' context, without describing required permissions, what happens to unspecified fields, or the nature of the update. Useful but minimal beyond annotations.
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. It is appropriately sized for its very limited content, though the extreme brevity leaves the definition under-specified.
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 tool with four undocumented parameters, no output schema, and an admin-path variant competing with a normal update tool, the description is far too thin. It does not supply the operational or parameter context needed to invoke this safely and 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any of the four parameters (form, params, cipher_id, json_body). An agent gains no semantic detail about what each parameter expects or how to structure the update payload.
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 names a specific verb (Update) and resource (cipher) and adds the qualifier 'admin path,' but it largely restates the tool's name and title without explicitly distinguishing it from the sibling vaultwarden_put_cipher or explaining what the admin path entails.
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 guidance on when to use this admin-path update versus the regular cipher update, no prerequisites, and no conditions or exclusions. The agent is left to infer the distinction 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.