vaultwarden_reinvite_memberResend a pending invitation to an organization member who has not yet accepted, prompting them to join the Vaultwarden server.
Resend one pending invite
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form | No | ||
| org_id | Yes | ||
| params | No | ||
| json_body | No | ||
| member_id | Yes |
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 operation. The description adds no further behavioral context such as permission requirements, effects on already-accepted invites, or rate limits, so it offers little beyond the structured safety hints.
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 brief but under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It is front-loaded but omits information needed to disambiguate or invoke the tool correctly, so its brevity is a liability rather than a strength.
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 five parameters, zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain required identifiers, expected side effects, failure modes, or how it differs from sibling resend operations.
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 five parameters, including required org_id and member_id plus opaque form, params, and json_body fields. The description provides no parameter-level meaning or format guidance to compensate for the absent 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 states a specific action (resend) and scope (one pending invite), which distinguishes it from bulk reinvite siblings. However, it does not distinguish this tool from closely named siblings like vaultwarden_resend_invite or vaultwarden_resend_user_invite, leaving ambiguity about which invite type is targeted.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the multiple resend/invite siblings. The phrase 'one pending invite' implies it applies only to pending invitations, but no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.