list_permissionsList every permission key this deployment knows, with what it allows, who can hold it, the kind of resource it applies to and whether it is dangerous. Use it to tell a person which grant to make, for example pipeline.write at pipeline: for a team that owns a delegated pipeline. Requires a personal API key that can read permission policies.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly and non-destructive, and the description adds real context beyond them: the auth requirement ('personal API key that can read permission policies') and the shape of the returned data, including a danger flag. That is meaningful disclosure for a no-argument catalog tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and then when to reach for it. Slightly dense, but every clause (returned fields, example, auth prerequisite) earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description usefully compensates by naming the fields returned (what it allows, who can hold it, resource kind, danger flag) and the auth prerequisite. Nothing critical is missing for a read-only zero-arg catalog call.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter behavior and instead describes the content of what comes back.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('List every permission key this deployment knows') and immediately scopes it as the permission *catalog*, which separates it from the sibling policy listers (list_member_permission_policies, list_team_permission_policies, list_roles). The enumeration of returned attributes reinforces what the tool is about.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Gives a concrete use case with a worked example ('to tell a person which grant to make, for example pipeline.write at pipeline:<key> for a team that owns a delegated pipeline'), which is enough for an agent to recognize the scenario. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g. 'use list_member_permission_policies to see what a member already holds').
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.