Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
enpass-mcp

enpass-mcp

by bitterdev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Get password

get_password

Retrieves a password (and TOTP, if present) for a vault entry using its UUID. Requires an unlocked vault and entry UUID.

Instructions

Returns just the password (and TOTP if present) of an entry in an unlocked vault.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "vault": "<vault>",
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "get_password"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
uuidYesEntry uuid (from list_items)
vaultYesRegistered vault name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the limited scope ('just the password') and conditional TOTP return ('if present'), but does not describe failure modes (e.g., locked vault, missing entry) or any side effects. Basic behavior is covered, but not deep context.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key verb and object, with no filler or redundancy. It earns its place by being directly informative.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains the return content and prerequisite (unlocked vault). Minor gaps include lack of information about return format or error behavior, but overall it is reasonably complete for the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already thoroughly documents both parameters (uuid from list_items, vault name). The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Returns') and a clear resource ('the password (and TOTP if present) of an entry in an unlocked vault'). It distinguishes from siblings like get_item by emphasizing 'just the password' and from get_otp by indicating TOTP inclusion when present.

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?

The phrase 'in an unlocked vault' conveys a clear prerequisite context for use. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use this tool, though the 'just' phrasing implies using get_item for full details.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools