Skip to main content
Glama
keepassxc-mcp

keepassxc-mcp

by preginald

unlock

Open a locked KeePassXC database by prompting the user to enter the master password in the KeePassXC window, so the MCP server never handles it.

Instructions

Ask KeePassXC to open a locked database, raising its unlock prompt.

The master password is typed by the user in the KeePassXC window; this server never sees it. Other tools call this automatically when they hit a locked database, unless KEEPASSXC_MCP_AUTO_UNLOCK=0.

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": "unlock"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
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 the master password is typed by the user in the KeePassXC window and never seen by the server, and that auto-unlock behavior is controlled by an environment variable. It omits details about blocking behavior, timeout effects, or what happens if the user cancels the prompt.

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?

Three short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the security-relevant password handling detail and the auto-unlock behavior.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. The description covers the key behavioral context (user-typed password, auto-unlock) but leaves the timeout parameter completely unexplained and omits what happens on prompt cancellation or timeout expiry, leaving a meaningful gap for invocation.

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% and the single 'timeout' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain what the timeout controls, its units, default behavior, or what happens when it expires, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Ask KeePassXC to open a locked database, raising its unlock prompt.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling lock_database tool and from read tools like get_logins.

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?

Explains that other tools call this automatically when they hit a locked database, unless KEEPASSXC_MCP_AUTO_UNLOCK=0. This gives clear usage context, though it doesn't explicitly say when an agent should call it directly versus relying on automatic invocation.

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