Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
keepassxc-mcp

keepassxc-mcp

by preginald
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

associate

Establish a connection between the MCP server and an unlocked KeePassXC database by accepting a confirmation dialog. This local association is typically needed only once for subsequent sessions.

Instructions

Associate this MCP server with the unlocked KeePassXC database.

KeePassXC shows a confirmation dialog; the user must accept it. Usually needed only once — the association is stored locally for later sessions.

Tool call template

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": "associate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that a confirmation dialog appears and requires user acceptance, and that the association persists locally for later sessions. It omits what happens if the user declines or how failures surface, which keeps it below a 5.

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 filler; the core action is front-loaded and the persistence/interaction caveats follow immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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 operation with an output schema available, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: the user-interaction requirement and the one-time nature. Only failure/decline behavior is left unaddressed.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The description correctly implies a no-argument, side-effecting call.

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 names a specific verb and resource: associating this MCP server with the unlocked KeePassXC database. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like unlock or status, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them (e.g., 'call unlock first, then associate').

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 gives a clear usage context: 'Usually needed only once — the association is stored locally for later sessions,' and the phrase 'unlocked KeePassXC database' implies the prerequisite that unlock must happen first. It stops short of explicitly naming the unlock sibling or stating a when-not condition.

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