vaultwarden_put_group_membersAssign or update the members of an organization group by providing organization and group IDs to control who belongs to the group.
Set which members belong to 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 state readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds almost nothing beyond that. Critically, it does not clarify whether this replaces the full membership list, what happens to omitted members, or what permissions are required for a group membership mutation.
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. However, for a 5-parameter mutation with no schema descriptions, it is too terse to be considered appropriately sized.
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?
Given 5 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description leaves out essential calling details such as required identifiers and request body semantics. It is not complete enough to support correct invocation.
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% for 5 parameters, including required org_id and group_id. The description mentions no parameter names, formats, or expected bodies, so it does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 clear verb ('Set') and resource ('which members belong to a group'), so an agent can understand the operation. It does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as vaultwarden_get_group_members or vaultwarden_update_membership_type, which keeps it below a 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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusion conditions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Set'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.