List stored passwords to retrieve login credentials for monitored systems.
🔐 List passwords - Show stored passwords
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "vibemk_get_passwords"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.10Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It states a read-only action ('List passwords') but does not explicitly mention side effects, security implications, or return format. The behavior is fairly obvious for a list operation, but lacks explicit transparency about data sensitivity.
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 extremely concise, using only two short phrases: 'List passwords - Show stored passwords'. Every word serves a purpose, and it is well-structured for quick understanding.
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 is adequate for a simple list operation, but it does not specify what information is returned (e.g., password names, full passwords, metadata). Without an output schema, this ambiguity leaves the agent uncertain about the exact response structure.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially complete. There is no parameter information to add, and the description provides none, making this a neutral baseline score.
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 clearly states the tool lists passwords with the verb 'List' and the resource 'passwords'. It is unambiguous and distinguishes from sibling tools that create, update, or delete passwords.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention related tools like create_password, update_password, or delete_password, nor any conditions for use. The purpose is implicit but not explicitly contrasted with other operations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.