vaultwarden_put_groupUpdates an existing group in a Vaultwarden/Bitwarden organization using its org and group IDs, with optional form, params, or JSON body fields.
Update a group
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| org_id | Yes | ||
| params | No | ||
| group_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 indicate this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world mutation. The description adds no behavioral context such as required permissions, partial-update semantics, side effects, or what happens to fields not supplied.
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 description is only two words and is front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise for a 5-parameter mutation tool. It is too terse to earn its place as guidance.
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 group-update mutation with five undocumented parameters and no output schema, the description leaves out nearly everything needed for safe invocation. The minimal annotations do not compensate for the missing explanation of inputs and behavior.
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?
There are 5 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description mentions none of them. It gives no meaning for org_id, group_id, form, params, or json_body, leaving the agent unable to know how to populate them correctly.
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 clear verb ('Update') and resource ('group'), which is enough to distinguish it from get/delete/post group siblings at a high level. It does not clarify what aspects of the group are updated or how it differs from vaultwarden_put_group_members, so it falls short of 5.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or alternatives such as post_group, put_group_members, or delete_group. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'Update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.