vaultwarden_put_settings_domainsSet the equivalent-domains list for a Vaultwarden server to control which domains are treated as equivalent during login and vault access.
Set equivalent-domains list (PUT alias)
| 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 readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety baseline is covered. The description adds only '(PUT alias)' and never discloses the critical behavior for a 'set' operation: that it likely replaces the entire equivalent-domains list rather than appending, nor any auth/permission requirements.
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 terse phrase, front-loaded and free of filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it edges toward under-specification rather than true conciseness.
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 0% parameter coverage, no output schema, and undifferentiated generic parameters, the description is far too thin. It leaves the agent without the request shape or the replace-semantics needed to call it 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 coverage is 0% and the three parameters (form, params, json_body) have no descriptions or types in the schema. The description provides zero parameter information to compensate for this total gap, leaving the agent unable to know how to supply the domains list.
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 and resource ('Set equivalent-domains list') and adds '(PUT alias)' to hint at its relationship to the POST sibling. An agent can tell it mutates the domains setting, though the meaning of 'equivalent-domains' and the exact difference from post_settings_domains remains implicit.
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_get_settings_domains or vaultwarden_post_settings_domains. The '(PUT alias)' note hints at an HTTP-method distinction but doesn't say when one should be chosen over the other.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.