l0-py-blocks-mcp

update_permission

Update an existing permission.

Args: item_id: The ID of the permission to update name: Permission name description: Permission description resource: Resource name (arbitrary string) resource_group: Resource group name (arbitrary string) tags: List of action tags (e.g., ["create", "read", "update", "delete"]) project_key: Project key (tenant ID). Uses global tenant_id if not provided type: Permission type (default: 3 for "Data protection") dependent_permissions: List of dependent permission IDs (default: []) is_built_in: Whether it's a built-in permission (default: false)

Returns: JSON string with permission update result

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`tags`	Yes
`type`	No
`item_id`	Yes
`resource`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`is_built_in`	No
`project_key`	No
`resource_group`	Yes
`dependent_permissions`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'Update an existing permission' and the return type. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, validation, or any constraints beyond parameter defaults.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is structured as a docstring with a clear purpose statement, Args list, and Returns note. While lengthy due to 10 parameters, each line adds value and avoids redundancy.

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?

The description thoroughly covers parameters and return type, and the output schema exists for structured results. It lacks usage scenarios or behavioral caveats, but for a straightforward update operation, it is reasonably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The Args section adds meaningful explanations for all 10 parameters, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage. It clarifies optionality, defaults, and examples (e.g., 'uses global tenant_id if not provided' and 'default: 3 for "Data protection"').

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?

The description clearly states 'Update an existing permission,' using a specific verb and resource. This distinguishes it from siblings like create_permission and list_permissions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only restates the function's operation without context.

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

All l0-py-blocks-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools are organized into clear domains (auth, roles, schemas, translations, projects), and within each domain, tools have distinct purposes (e.g., get_schema vs list_schemas, save_captcha_config vs update_captcha_status). A few pairs like get_auth_status and get_authentication_config could cause minor confusion, but their descriptions clarify the difference.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case, using predictable verbs like get, list, create, update, set, enable, and configure. Even longer names like save_module_keys_with_translations adhere to the same convention, with no mixed casing or arbitrary styles.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range for MCP servers. While the broad platform domain justifies some breadth, the sheer volume can overwhelm agents and suggests the toolset could be consolidated or split into smaller, focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The toolset provides decent coverage for creation, listing, and some updates across entities like permissions, roles, schemas, and translations. However, there are notable gaps: no delete operations for most resources, no role update, and no project update/delete, which leaves lifecycle management incomplete.

Resources

Need Help?