Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rbw-mcp

rbw-mcp

by dceluis
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript

delete

Delete an item from your Bitwarden vault by providing its ID. Removes the selected entry from the password manager vault securely.

Instructions

Delete an item from your 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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID of the object to delete.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
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.

Deploy Server

Other Tools