vaultwarden_revoke_memberRevoke a Vaultwarden organization member's access without deleting the member, preserving external_id and history. Use org_id and member_id to disable access while keeping account records.
Revoke one member’s access without removing them (keeps external_id/history)
| 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?
The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the member is not removed and external_id/history are preserved. This aligns with destructiveHint=false and helps clarify the mutation is not a deletion. It still does not state required permissions, reversibility, or side effects.
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 a single compact sentence with the core effect front-loaded. Every element earns its place by clarifying scope and the preserve-history behavior.
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?
The description establishes purpose and a key behavioral distinction for a mutation tool, which is useful given the annotations. However, with five undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many similar member-management siblings, it leaves important routing and parameter details incomplete.
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 there are five parameters, including required org_id and member_id plus form/params/json_body. The description only vaguely implies a member, without explaining any parameter meanings, formats, or required identifiers.
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 specific verb and resource: revoke one member's access. It also distinguishes the effect from removal by saying it keeps external_id/history and does not remove the member. Sibling alternatives are only implicitly contrasted, not named.
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 implies when to use it: when access should be revoked without deleting the member or losing history. However, it does not explicitly compare against vaultwarden_delete_member, vaultwarden_bulk_revoke_members, or vaultwarden_update_membership_type, and it names no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.