bitwarden-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: group listing/creation, member listing/retrieval/invitation/removal, and member-group membership operations. There is no overlap that could cause misselection; list vs. get and list vs. update are clearly read vs. write.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow a consistent 'bitwarden_verb_noun' pattern, using snake_case throughout. The verbs (list, get, invite, reinvite, remove, update, create) are clear and aligned with the noun, making the pattern predictable and easy to follow.
Tool Count5/5
Nine tools is well within the ideal range for a focused server. Each tool covers a meaningful operation for Bitwarden organization member and group management, with no redundant or extraneous utilities.
Completeness4/5
The core workflows for managing members and their group memberships are covered, including invite, remove, list, get, and group assignment. Minor gaps exist: no update or delete for groups, and no separate tool to update a member's role/access_all after creation, but these are workaroundable and do not severely hinder the primary use case.
Average 4.2/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored. Lowest: 3.5/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under Apache 2.0.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action 'remove' without revealing consequences such as whether it is irreversible, revokes access immediately, or has any constraints (e.g., cannot remove the last owner). This is a destructive operation, and the lack of such context leaves a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized—two sentences that immediately state the action and param meaning. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a helpful cross-reference to list_members. Every word earns its place, with no unnecessary filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple removal tool with one parameter, the description provides the essential purpose and parameter guidance. However, it omits important context such as permissions required, whether the action is reversible, and what happens if the member does not exist. An output schema exists but is not shown, so the description could still benefit from noting the result of the operation. Overall, it meets the minimum viable threshold but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides 'Member Id' with no description. The description adds critical meaning by specifying 'The member's UUID (see bitwarden_list_members),' clarifying the expected format (UUID) and how to obtain it. This goes beyond the schema's minimal title, effectively compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a member from the Bitwarden organization.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list, invite, or get member, making the purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The only indirect hint is 'see bitwarden_list_members' for obtaining the UUID, but there is no clear directive on conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The tool's simple name implies its use case, but the description does not articulate it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It reveals the returned id and the follow-up invite workflow, but omits permissions required, potential errors (e.g., duplicate names), or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a mutating tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is appropriately sized with a one-sentence purpose, a useful workflow note, and a structured Args list. It is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place, though the Args section is slightly verbose relative to the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple create operation and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core purpose, parameter meanings, and the follow-up step. It lacks guidance on prerequisites or failure modes, but is largely complete for a straightforward tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are explicitly explained: name is 'Name of the group to create,' access_all is described as granting access to all collections with a default, and external_id is contextualized as an IdP sync identifier. This adds meaning well beyond the bare schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a new vault group in the Bitwarden organization,' using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from member-focused sibling tools (e.g., invite_member, list_member_groups) by focusing on group creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a workflow hint about using the returned id with bitwarden_update_member_groups, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. Usage is implied by the 'create' action rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a read-only operation, and 'currently belongs to' indicates a snapshot of membership. However, it does not explicitly state permissions required, whether the operation is safe/non-mutating, or any rate limits. It is minimally sufficient but not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise, with a single purpose sentence and a brief argument definition. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no filler or redundant details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It specifies the member_id and the intended result. It could mention what happens when the member has no groups (e.g., returns an empty list), but the output schema likely covers the return structure.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has no descriptions for member_id (0% coverage), but the description compensates by explaining 'member_id: The member's UUID (see bitwarden_list_members).' This tells the agent what the value represents and where to obtain it, which is adequate for a single-parameter tool.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action: 'List the vault group IDs a member currently belongs to.' This uses a specific verb (List), resource (vault group IDs), and scope (for a member), which distinguishes it from siblings like bitwarden_list_groups (all groups) or bitwarden_list_members (all members).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It only mentions 'see bitwarden_list_members' for the member_id parameter, which is about sourcing the argument rather than choosing an alternative tool. No alternatives like bitwarden_update_member_groups are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' implicitly indicates a read-only, non-destructive operation, but no additional context is given about pagination, rate limits, or response format. For a zero-parameter list tool, the description is adequate but not rich; it does not contradict any annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-formed sentence that immediately states the action and object. There is no filler, repetition, or unnecessary detail. It is perfectly concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists (which likely defines the return structure), the description is sufficient for a simple list operation. It identifies the organization scope and the resource. No further context is needed for an agent to invoke this correctly, though it could optionally mention that it returns the full organizational group list.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter information, but there is nothing to explain. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description does not detract from the schema's completeness.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with the resource 'vault groups' and scopes it to 'the Bitwarden organization.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that handle members (e.g., bitwarden_list_members) and from group mutations (e.g., bitwarden_create_group). The intent is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when you need to retrieve all vault groups, but it offers no explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance. Given the sibling tools for member-group associations (e.g., bitwarden_list_member_groups), the description could have mentioned that this tool is for the full group list, not filtered by member. However, the context is clear enough for a simple list operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior itself. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't mention error behaviors, authentication requirements, or edge cases. The output schema covers return structure, but the description adds no further transparency beyond the obvious read nature.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is highly concise: one sentence for the purpose plus a short argument annotation. No wasted words, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose before the parameter detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the necessary context: it identifies the sole parameter, tells how to obtain it, and states the purpose. It lacks explicit error-case discussion, but that is a minor gap for a get-by-id tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero description coverage, but the description explains that member_id is a UUID and directs the user to bitwarden_list_members for obtaining it. This adds semantic meaning that the schema lacks, effectively compensating for the schema's lack of parameter detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (Get) and the specific resource (a single organization member's details), distinguishing it from sibling tools like bitwarden_list_members (plural) and mutation tools. The verb and resource are precise and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides context by telling the user to obtain the member_id via bitwarden_list_members, which is an alternative tool for a prerequisite step. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast when to use this tool vs. other member-related tools, but the reference to list_members is a useful usage hint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context by defining the member status field values (0=Invited, 1=Accepted, 2=Confirmed), which is not apparent from the schema alone. It does not mention authorization or pagination, but for a simple list operation this is acceptable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by the status field mapping. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. The status field mapping adds useful interpretative context, making the description complete for a list operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain any parameters, and no extra parameter information is required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'List' with a clear resource ('all members of the Bitwarden organization'), which precisely distinguishes it from sibling tools like bitwarden_list_groups and bitwarden_get_member. No ambiguity about what the tool returns.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly states the tool lists all members, so when to use it is implied. However, it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over bitwarden_get_member or provide any exclusionary guidance, making it adequate but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the core action (resending an invitation email) but does not mention potential side effects, error cases, or authorization requirements, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise: one sentence plus a parameter explanation. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It would benefit from noting preconditions (e.g., member must be in invited status), but the existing context suffices for basic use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates fully by explaining member_id as the member's UUID and directing to bitwarden_list_members, adding meaning beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Resend' and identifies the resource 'invitation email to a member', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like invite_member or remove_member.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It specifies the context ('who hasn't accepted it yet') and references bitwarden_list_members for obtaining the member_id. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the email invitation, the initial status value of 0 (Invited), and the prerequisite for type=4 requiring custom permissions. It also clarifies that group access is not granted by this call.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a top-line summary followed by parameter details. Each sentence serves a purpose—no wasted words. The Args section is appropriately detailed given the lack of schema descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description fully equips an agent to invoke the tool correctly: it explains the action, parameter semantics, role enum, and the necessary follow-up. With an output schema present, return value details are covered. It is complete for this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains every parameter: the role enum values for type, the meaning of access_all, and the purpose of external_id. It adds critical meaning beyond the JSON schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Invite a new member to the Bitwarden organization by email.' This is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like bitwarden_list_members or bitwarden_remove_member.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly instructs to follow up with bitwarden_update_member_groups to grant vault group access, and explains that the returned member 'id' is needed for that call. This provides clear usage context and an alternative next step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that the tool REPLACES the member's entire group list and does not append, which is a critical destructive behavior. It also clarifies the consequence and provides a safe usage pattern, making the tool's behavior fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It opens with a clear one-sentence summary, follows with an important caveat in bold, then provides a concise usage workflow, and finally lists params with references to related tools. Every sentence adds value, with no redundant or filler content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (a mutating operation with a non-obvious replacement behavior), the description covers all necessary aspects: the action, the critical side effect, the safe usage pattern, and each parameter's meaning. Since the output schema is provided, return values need not be explained. The description is fully sufficient for an AI agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides parameter names and types, but the description adds meaningful context: member_id is described as 'The member's UUID' with a pointer to bitwarden_list_members, and group_ids is described as the 'Full list of vault group UUIDs' with a pointer to bitwarden_list_groups. This goes beyond the schema and clarifies the expected values and their role in the operation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Set which vault groups a member belongs to') and explicitly identifies it as the 'group invitation' action, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_member_groups or remove_member. The scope is unambiguous: it updates a member's group memberships.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit usage guidance, including a critical warning that the operation REPLACES the entire group list rather than appending. It also gives a concrete workflow for safely adding a member to a group without losing existing memberships: first call bitwarden_list_member_groups, merge the new group IDs, then pass the full merged list. This directly addresses when to use this tool and how to avoid unintended side effects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bitwarden-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MSPbotsAI/bitwarden-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MSPbotsAI/bitwarden-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![bitwarden-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MSPbotsAI/bitwarden-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MSPbotsAI/bitwarden-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/MSPbotsAI/bitwarden-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server