bitwarden-agent-vault-mcp

by ceweldy

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

JavaScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool serves a distinct purpose: retrieving plaintext secrets, listing metadata, running commands with injected secrets, opening the vault, checking status, and storing secrets. No overlapping functionality.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_secret, list_projects). The use of 'status' (a noun) and 'run_with_secrets' (verb plus preposition) are minor deviations but still clear.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools covering key operations (list, get, store, execute, navigate, check), the count is well-scoped for the server's purpose without superfluous tools.
Completeness4/5
Core CRUD and lifecycle operations are present, including read, create/update, and execution. Missing a dedicated delete tool, but store_secret can update, so only a minor gap.
Average 4/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 9, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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

Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds context: it states that the returned result omits the secret value, which is a behavioral trait beyond annotations. It also implies idempotent update when key matches, but doesn't detail what gets destroyed or authentication needs.
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 only two sentences, with no wasted words. It front-loads the critical operation (create/update) and concludes with a notable behavioral fact (omission of secret value).
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and the tool being a mutation with destructive hint, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain the behavior of 'overwrite', what happens on key collision, how 'project_id' affects scoping, or error states. The omission note is helpful but not enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the five parameters. Required parameters 'key' and 'value' are unexplained, and optional parameters 'note', 'overwrite', and 'project_id' receive no guidance on semantics or constraints.
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: 'Create a stable secret or update the existing exact-key match in one project.' It specifies the verb (create/update) and the resource (secret), and implicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_secret or list_secrets by focusing on write operations.
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 usage for both creation and exact-key update, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use store_secret versus alternatives like rotate or update through other means. No exclusions or context for when not to use this tool.
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?
The description discloses key behaviors: redaction of secret values from output and that execution is disabled by default. This adds value beyond annotations, which already indicate destructiveness and non-read-only. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences, no fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every word serves a purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description only mentions redaction. It fails to describe return values, error behavior, or success indicators, which is insufficient for a command execution tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters, but it only indirectly mentions 'secret_keys' and 'executable'. Parameters like 'args', 'timeout_seconds', 'working_directory', and 'project_id' are not explained, leaving agents guessing.
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 ('Run'), the resource ('executable'), and the context ('with Bitwarden secrets'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_secret or list_secrets by focusing on execution rather than retrieval.
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?
It mentions command execution is disabled by default, hinting at a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide selection criteria. No mention of when not to use it.
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true (safe, no mutations) and openWorldHint=true (navigates externally). The description adds that the vault can be narrowed to a specific project, which is a useful behavioral nuance beyond what annotations provide.
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?
A single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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 tool with one optional parameter and strong annotations, the description covers the key purpose and parameter effect. It could be improved by clarifying what 'open' means (e.g., returns a URL) but is largely complete.
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 coverage is 0%, but the description mentions 'project UUID' for project_id, adding meaning. However, it does not specify the format or source of the UUID, leaving some ambiguity.
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 specific action ('Open the Bitwarden Secrets Manager web vault') and the optional narrowing by project UUID. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like get_secret and list_projects which perform different operations.
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 when to use (to access the vault UI) but does not explicitly mention when to avoid or provide alternatives. No exclusion criteria or context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a project UUID from list_projects).
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?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, signaling a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying exactly what is checked (installation, token, live access) and reassures that credentials are not exposed, providing behavioral context beyond 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, concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose with no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.
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 (one boolean parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description covers the core functionality and safety. It lacks return format details, but for a low-complexity tool, it is sufficiently complete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. The description implies the 'verify_remote' boolean parameter controls optional live access, but it does not explicitly link the parameter name or its effect. The added meaning is moderate.
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 checks local CLI installation, machine-token availability, and optional live Bitwarden access, using a specific verb and distinct resources. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_secret or list_secrets by focusing on environment readiness rather than data retrieval.
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 this tool is for verifying setup before using other tools, but it does not explicitly state when to use it or provide alternatives. Without explicit when-not or usage context, the guidance is adequate but not strong.
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?
Annotations already indicate read-only and open-world hints. The description adds that secret values are never returned, a crucial behavioral trait. It does not address pagination or result completeness, but annotations cover the safety profile.
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?
Two sentences, immediate action verb, no fluff. Perfectly concise for its purpose.
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?
The description lacks explanation of what 'metadata' includes, how filters combine, and implications of openWorldHint. No output schema exists to clarify return structure. Overall, leaves some information gaps.
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 provides no descriptions for the two optional parameters. The description mentions they enable filtering by project or search text, adding high-level meaning but lacking details on format or combination behavior.
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 it lists secret names and metadata, differentiating from get_secret which returns values. The verb 'list' and resource 'secrets' are explicit, and sibling tools provide context.
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 description explains optional filters by project or search text, implying use for metadata browsing rather than retrieving secret values. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like get_secret for when values are needed.
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?
The description adds value beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by revealing that the tool returns plaintext and that a configuration gate exists. It does not cover error behavior or rate limits, but for a simple read operation the transparency is good.
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?
A single sentence of 18 words that is front-loaded and contains no redundancy. Every word serves a purpose.
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?
The tool is simple with no output schema. The description explains the core action and a critical condition. Missing details on error responses or return format, but overall adequate for the tool's simplicity.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description provides crucial meaning for the identifier parameter (UUID or exact key). However, it fails to explain the purpose of the project_id parameter, leaving a gap.
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 returns a secret value in plaintext by UUID or exact key, with a conditional on configuration. This specific verb-resource pairing distinguishes it from siblings like list_secrets (metadata) and store_secret (write).
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 description includes a key prerequisite (configuration must allow plaintext reveal) and specifies how to identify the secret (UUID or exact key). However, it does not explicitly advise when not to use or mention alternatives like run_with_secrets for cases where plaintext reveal is not enabled.
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?
Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description adds that the tool 'Returns metadata only' and clarifies the scope limitation ('accessible to this machine identity'), providing useful behavioral 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?
Two concise sentences with no wasted words, front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds value.
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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers scope, return type, and access constraints. Sibling tool names provide additional context.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% with no parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter details. The mention of 'metadata only' provides additional return value context beyond the 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 clearly specifies the action ('List'), the resource ('Bitwarden Secrets Manager projects'), and the scope ('accessible to this machine identity'). It distinguishes from siblings like list_secrets which list a different resource.
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 usage context by stating the identity-based access scope, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.
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-agent-vault-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ceweldy/bitwarden-agent-vault-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/ceweldy/bitwarden-agent-vault-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

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

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