get_custom_roleGet one custom role by ID: its permission strings, how many members hold it and when it was last changed. Get the ID from list_custom_roles or from a member's customRoleId. Requires organization context. Read-only: members, roles, teams and SSO are not changeable through MCP by design — a human does those in the web app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roleId | Yes | Public ID (GUID) of the custom role |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states that members, roles, teams, and SSO are not changeable through MCP and directs users to the web app for changes. This adds valuable context about side effects and limitations.
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?
The description is two sentences—one focused on purpose and contents, the other on ID source and read-only scope. It is efficient with no fluff, though the second sentence packs several clauses into one line.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately summarizes the output contents, mentions the prerequisite of organization context, and clarifies the read-only nature. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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 schema fully describes roleId as a public ID (GUID), and the description enriches it by explaining where to obtain the ID (list_custom_roles or a member's customRoleId). This gives the agent complete understanding of the parameter's meaning and provenance.
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?
The description clearly states the tool fetches one custom role by ID and lists the specific data returned (permission strings, member count, last change). It also tells the user where to obtain the ID, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from listing tools.
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?
It provides guidance on sourcing the roleId from list_custom_roles or a member's customRoleId, and notes the requirement for organization context. It does not explicitly name list_custom_roles as an alternative for bulk listing, but the singular 'one custom role' implies that use case.
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.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.