rbw-mcp

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

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

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct (status vs unlock vs lock vs sync; create/edit/delete vs list/get). The only minor ambiguity is between 'list' and 'get' — both retrieve vault items, though one returns fields for a specific item and the other enumerates items. The distinction is reasonably clear from descriptions.
Naming Consistency4/5
All tools use short, single-word imperative names (status, create, edit, generate, lock, unlock, sync, list, get, code, delete). The style is consistent, though the names are generic single verbs rather than a verb_noun pattern, which slightly reduces predictability compared to the ideal convention.
Tool Count4/5
With 11 tools for a Bitwarden password manager vault, the surface is appropriately scoped. Each tool maps to a distinct vault operation (locks, item CRUD, sync, TOTP, generation), and none feel redundant. The count is slightly on the higher side but still well within reason.
Completeness4/5
The surface covers vault lifecycle (unlock/lock/status/sync), item CRUD (list/get/create/edit/delete), TOTP retrieval, and password generation. Minor gaps include no ability to manage folders, move items between folders, or handle multiple vaults/collections, but the core password-management workflows are covered with no dead ends.
Average 3.2/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored. Lowest: 2.1/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 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
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
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

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description simply restates the operation without noting whether deletion is permanent, whether confirmation is required, whether related data is cascaded, or what happens to linked items. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a critical gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence with no wasted words, which merits credit. However, it is under-specified given this is a destructive operation—it is concise but not informative enough to fully justify the brevity.
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?
This is a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It does not describe the return value, whether deletion is reversible, error conditions, or what 'item' types are deletable. For a delete operation in a vault context with no structured safety signals, this is noticeably incomplete.
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% and the single 'id' parameter is documented as 'ID of the object to delete.' The schema fully describes the parameter, so the description adds little beyond what's already structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Delete an item from your vault' uses a specific verb (delete) and resource (vault item), but the tool name is simply 'delete' which is vague and generic. It does not specify what kind of item, what vault context applies, or distinguish from siblings like 'edit' or 'create'.
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 guidance on when to use this vs alternatives. There's no mention of confirming destructive intent, whether deleted items are recoverable, or any safeguards. Sibling tools like 'lock', 'unlock', and 'sync' suggest a vault context, but no usage direction is provided.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't state whether the vault needs to be unlocked, what happens to existing items with the same name, whether this triggers syncing, or what the response/return value looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than concise — there's room to add useful guidance without bloating it. Still, for what it contains, the structure is clean and front-loaded.
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?
The tool has 5 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a generic name ('create'). The description is minimal and doesn't explain return values, failure conditions, or behavioral semantics. Given the complexity and zero annotation support, the description should do substantially more than one sentence to be considered 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 100%, so all 5 parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting and the description doesn't need to compensate for undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create a new login item in your vault' states a clear verb+resource action with a specific scope ('login item', 'in your vault'). It distinguishes from siblings reasonably, though 'create' is a generic tool name and the description doesn't contrast against 'edit' or other mutations. It's clear but lacks the specificity that would make it a 4-5.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'edit', 'generate', or 'delete'. The description implies usage context (creating login items) but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative recommendations. The agent gets no direction about the vault being locked versus unlocked or other conditions.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Sync' typically implies a network fetch and potentially destructive local cache updates, but the description doesn't disclose whether this overwrites local changes, how long it takes, or any side effects. For an operation with potentially significant behavioral implications, this is sparse.
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 a single concise sentence that is economical and directly states the core action. It earns its place without fluff, though it may be slightly too minimal.
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?
For a zero-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry significant weight on behavior and context. It only states the basic action. It doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether a network connection is required, what state changes occur, or any prerequisites (like being logged in/unlocked). Given the zero-param simplicity, this could be a simple operation, but more context around side effects and requirements would help.
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 0 parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's nothing left to document. The baseline of 4 for 0-param tools applies since there are no parameters needing clarification beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Sync' and resource 'vault data from the Bitwarden server', which clearly identifies the operation. However, it doesn't differentiate this from siblings like 'status' or 'list' in terms of what makes a sync distinct (e.g., pulling latest changes from the server to local cache). It's clear but somewhat generic.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention that this is typically needed after server changes, before reading data, or as a refresh operation. No exclusions or conditions provided, which leaves the agent to infer appropriate usage.
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 disclosure burden. It clearly indicates this is a mutating operation (edit/change). However, it doesn't mention whether edits require authentication/unlock state, whether an existing item is overwritten vs. merged, or what happens to unspecified fields (are unprovided fields preserved or cleared?). Zero annotation coverage means the description should disclose behavior more thoroughly, but it does at least convey the mutation nature.
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?
A single concise sentence that states the purpose clearly without wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. Front-loaded with the clean verb 'Edit' and specifics about what can be edited. No redundancy or fluff.
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?
This is a moderately simple tool with 3 parameters and full schema coverage, so the description isn't heavily burdened. However, it's a mutating operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral caveats (like whether updates require unlock state, or whether partial field updates preserve unmentioned fields). The description is minimally adequate but leaves some open questions for a state-changing operation.
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 100%, so the schema fully documents all three parameters (id, notes, password) with descriptions. Given the high coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate. The description adds 'for an existing item' context confirming the item must exist, but doesn't add format or behavioral details beyond what the schema provides. The description's mention of 'password and/or notes' clarifies that these are the editable subset, which is consistent with but not additive to the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Edit the password and/or notes for an existing item in your vault.' It clearly identifies the resource (vault items) and what can be edited (password, notes). However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'create', 'delete', or 'get' tools explicitly, though the action is distinct enough that the purpose is reasonably clear without naming alternatives.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description doesn't mention that 'id' is required, that this takes an existing item (implying the item must already exist), or contrast with alternatives like 'create' (for new items) or 'delete'. There's no explicit or implied usage context beyond the basic editing action.
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It says what the tool checks but doesn't disclose what the return value looks like (boolean? message?), whether it has side effects, or whether it requires auth. For a status/check tool this is a notable 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?
One concise, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose directly. Zero wasted words or filler.
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?
For a simple 0-parameter check tool this is reasonably scoped, but the absence of output schema and annotations, combined with no description of what the response contains (unlocked boolean? status message?), leaves meaningful ambiguity. A one-line mention of the expected result format would elevate it.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description adequately conveys the only 'input' is the implicit vault context, requiring no parameter explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Check if the vault is unlocked.' clearly states the tool checks vault lock status with a specific verb and resource. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from siblings like lock/unlock beyond the obvious read-vs-action differentiation, and doesn't clarify what 'vault' refers to or what the output means.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It's implied this is a read/check operation distinct from lock/unlock actions, but no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions are provided.
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 behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the default generation mode (with symbols) which is helpful. However, it doesn't disclose output format, whether the result is returned or stored, security caveats (e.g., entropy levels at various lengths), or any side effects. The description conveys useful default behavior but leaves key behavioral questions unanswered.
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?
Two concise sentences with no filler. The default behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence and reinforced with a specific detail in the second. Efficient and to the point, though it could pack in more useful behavioral info without bloating.
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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and no nested objects, this is reasonably complete. The description covers the purpose and default behavior. However, given there's no output schema, the description could have noted what the tool returns (a string password/passphrase), and it could clarify the length-parameter semantics for passphrases (word count vs. character count). Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal meaning: it mentions the default (symbols) which relates to noSymbols, but doesn't connect the parameters to use cases (e.g., that diceware is for memorability, length means words when diceware is true). The description provides only marginal value above the schema's existing parameter descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states a clear verb+resource ('generate a secure password or passphrase') and adds a default behavior detail (strong password with symbols). While it doesn't explicitly compare against siblings, 'generate' is distinctively a creation action versus the other listed tools (status, list, sync, etc.). Purpose is specific but lacks explicit differentiation from a potential overlapping tool like 'create'.
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 generating passwords/passphrases but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives. It indicates a 'by default' behavior which gives some context for default invocation, but doesn't clarify when one would use diceware versus symbol-based generation or when to prefer this over a 'create' tool.
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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that an interactive prompt for a master password may appear, which is useful context. However, it doesn't disclose what happens if the vault is already unlocked (error? no-op?), whether this has side effects, or what the response format is. For an action tool with zero annotation coverage, more behavioral detail is expected.
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 short sentences, zero wasted words. The critical behavioral detail (interactive password prompt) is included upfront. Well-structured and appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool.
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 zero-parameter operation on a vault, the description covers the core purpose and one important behavioral quirk (interactive prompt). However, it's a state-changing action (unlocking a vault) that could benefit from noting prerequisites (vault must exist/be initialized, sync state implications) or the operational impact of unlocking. The sibling tools create/edit/delete suggest a broad workflow, but the description doesn't place unlock within it.
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 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the schema describes everything. The description appropriately notes the interactive prompt behavior, which is the only parameter-adjacent consideration. With zero params, baseline is 4, and the description doesn't detract from this.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (unlock) and resource (the vault), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'lock' tool by implying the opposite operation, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling.
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 it (when vault is locked and access is needed) but doesn't explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. Given the sibling list includes 'status', the agent could infer checking status first, but the description doesn't explicitly guide this.
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 that it always returns specific fields (name, user, id, folder), which is useful. However, it doesn't mention what happens with no items, pagination, ordering, or rate limits. Reasonable for a read/list tool but the 'always returning' detail is the main behavioral disclosure.
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?
Two sentences, efficient and front-loaded with the core action. No waste, but the 'always returning fields' list is informative and earned. Slightly could have mentioned sibling alternatives but overall tight.
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 filtered-list tool with 2 optional parameters, full schema coverage, no output schema needed urgency for return value explanations. The description covers the core behavior, filter capability, and guarantees on returned fields. 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.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds the always-returned-fields context but doesn't add format/behavior detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema fully documents the two parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description states the verb (lists) and resource (items from the vault), plus the always-returned fields (name, user, id, folder). This distinguishes it reasonably from siblings like get and search tools, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. It's clear but not exceptional.
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 filtering by search term but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or contrasts with alternatives like get, code, or delete. The siblings include get and status, but the description doesn't clarify when list is appropriate versus those. Usage context is implied at best.
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?
The description discloses the behavioral trait of clearing cached keys, which is genuinely useful context. However, there are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't mention whether locked vaults can be re-locked, whether in-flight operations are affected, or whether this is destructive to any state beyond cache.
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?
One sentence, zero waste. Every word earns its place. The statement front-loads the verb and resource while adding a useful mechanism detail about how the operation works internally.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is fairly complete. It explains the action and mechanism. It could benefit from noting state implications (e.g., what does locking mean for subsequent tool calls), but given the simplicity of the tool, this is largely adequate.
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 schema is complete by default. The description explains the mechanism ('clearing cached keys') which gives the agent semantic context about what the operation does internally. With no params and 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (lock) and resource (vault), and explains the mechanism ('clearing cached keys from the agent'). While there's no explicit sibling differentiation, the contrast with 'unlock' sibling is clear. The mechanism detail adds specificity beyond a simple tautology.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided. The description implies usage context (locking a vault after done with keys) but doesn't contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For a state-changing tool, there's no mention of prerequisites or side effects.
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 does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: that the id can be a name or UUID, and importantly, that the response contains a 'secret: true' metadata flag which a gateway can intercept for sanitization or secure handle-based access. This is valuable context about handling sensitive data that an agent needs to know.
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 two sentences and reasonably concise. The first sentence delivers the core purpose efficiently. The second sentence adds important security context about the metadata flag and gateway interception. However, the security detail could arguably be trimmed to be more focused; it's slightly verbose for the value it adds at the end.
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?
This is a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, so the description burden is moderate. The description covers purpose, id flexbility (name/UUID), and importantly flags the sensitive 'secret' metadata handling. The main gap is lack of guidance on when to choose this vs 'generate' for TOTP, but for a simple retrieval tool the coverage is largely sufficient.
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 100%, so the schema already documents the 'id' parameter. The description adds mild value by noting the id can be a 'name or UUID', which is a useful clarification beyond the schema's generic 'ID or name for the object.' This is a minor enhancement over the baseline 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb+resource: 'Get a TOTP code for an item from your vault.' This clearly distinguishes the tool's purpose. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get' or 'generate', the TOTP-specific focus gives it a clear identity. The purpose is specific and actionable.
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 explains what the tool does but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives like 'generate' or 'get'. The context implies this is for fetching an existing TOTP code rather than creating one, but there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
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, and it does disclose a key behavior: the response includes a top-level 'metadata' object with a 'secret: true' flag that can be intercepted for sanitization or secure handle-based access. This is valuable, non-obvious behavior worth flagging. It does not mention auth requirements or other edge behaviors, but the disclosed secret-handling mechanism is significant and well beyond what an agent would guess.
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 concise at two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose ('Get a specific field for an item'). The second sentence about the metadata 'secret' flag earns its place by disclosing relevant behavioral context. No wasted words or redundant content.
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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers the essentials: core purpose, default field behavior, recommended workflow (list first), and notable response metadata. It doesn't describe return value structure, but for a simple retrieval tool, this is mostly inferable, and no output schema exists to add more. The missing piece is mild — how the password is returned (raw vs. wrapped).
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 input schema already fully documents both parameters (id and field). The description adds the default-value insight that 'field' defaults to the item's password, which is useful beyond the schema. However, most parameter meaning comes from the schema itself, so the description's incremental value is modest but real.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a specific field for an item (defaulting to password), with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('item field'). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'list', though the purpose is clear enough that an agent could reasonably infer the difference. A slightly more explicit sibling distinction would merit a 5.
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 explicitly recommends using 'list' first to find the exact item ID, giving clear sequencing guidance that helps an agent understand the tool's position in a workflow. It does not, however, describe when to prefer this over other tools or exclusion criteria, but the 'use list first' recommendation provides solid practical context.
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:

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

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![rbw-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dceluis/rbw-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/dceluis/rbw-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/dceluis/rbw-mcp'

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