Skip to main content
Glama

List Collections

keychain_list_collections
Read-only

List collections in a Bitwarden vault, optionally filtered by organization, to manage and organize stored credentials.

Instructions

List collections (optionally filtered by organization).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
searchNo
organizationIdNo
limitNo

Implementation Reference

  • I found that there is no tool exactly named 'keychain_list_collections'. However, there is 'keychain.list_collections' (depending on prefix) and several others like 'list_org_collections'. It appears the user may have misremembered the exact name. The code uses 'registerTool' to define these. Here is an example of one of the list tools.
    registerTool(
      `${deps.toolPrefix}.get_totp`,
      {
        title: 'Get TOTP',
        description:
          'Get a TOTP code/seed by search term (bw get totp). Returning a TOTP requires reveal=true.',
        annotations: { readOnlyHint: true },
        inputSchema: {
          term: z.string(),
          reveal: z.boolean().optional(),
        },
        _meta: toolMeta,
      },
      async (input, extra) => {
        const sdk = await deps.getSdk(extra.authInfo);
        const totp = await sdk.getTotp(
          { term: input.term },
          { reveal: effectiveReveal(input) },
        );
        return {
          structuredContent: toolResult('totp', totp.value, totp.revealed, {
            period: totp.period,
            timeLeft: totp.timeLeft,
          }),
          content: [{ type: 'text', text: 'OK' }],
        };
      },
    );
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating this is a safe read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context by mentioning optional filtering, but doesn't disclose important traits like pagination behavior (implied by 'limit' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'list' entails (e.g., format, sorting). With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but lacks rich behavioral details.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('List collections') and adds qualifying information concisely. There is no wasted verbiage or redundant phrasing, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (list operation with filtering parameters), lack of output schema, and annotations only covering read-only status, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource and a key filter but doesn't explain return format, error conditions, or parameter details. For a list tool with three parameters at 0% schema coverage, more contextual information would be beneficial.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the three parameters (search, organizationId, limit) have descriptions in the schema. The description only mentions 'optionally filtered by organization', which partially explains the organizationId parameter but ignores 'search' and 'limit'. It doesn't clarify what 'search' filters on, what 'limit' defaults to, or parameter interactions, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('List') and resource ('collections'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from other list operations like 'keychain_list_folders' and 'keychain_list_organizations' by specifying collections. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'keychain_list_org_collections', which appears to be a sibling tool with similar functionality.

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 mentioning optional filtering by organization, suggesting this tool is for retrieving collections with potential organizational scoping. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'keychain_list_org_collections' or 'keychain_get_collection', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/icoretech/warden-mcp'

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