Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
bitwarden-agent-vault-mcp

bitwarden-agent-vault-mcp

by ceweldy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Run a trusted command with Bitwarden secrets

run_with_secrets
Destructive

Inject selected project secrets as environment variables into an allowlisted executable. Secret values are redacted from output.

Instructions

Run one privately allowlisted executable with only the selected project secrets injected as environment variables. Command execution is disabled by default. Exact secret values are redacted from returned output.

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": {
      "secret_keys": "<secret_keys>",
      "executable": "<executable>"
    },
    "name": "run_with_secrets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsNo
executableYes
project_idNo
secret_keysYes
timeout_secondsNo
working_directoryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools