Skip to main content
Glama

ALM X++ MCP Server

by io.github.alimbenhelal-pro
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

trace_role_license_tree

Read-onlyIdempotent

WHEN: security design, licence audit, or 'what licence does this role require?'. Triggers: 'arborescence du rôle', 'licence nécessaire pour', 'what licence for role', 'role tree', 'droits du rôle', 'entry points of role', 'privilege tree for'. Builds the COMPLETE tree for ONE role: Role -> Duties -> Privileges -> Entry Points. For each entry point, classifies the required D365 licence per the March 2026 Licensing Guide: Team Members ($8/user/mo, read-only + named tasks), Operations-Activity ($50, warehouse mobile & production floor), Finance ($180), Supply Chain Mgmt ($180), Human Resources ($22), Project Operations ($120), Commerce (~$180). Grant-level aware: NoAccess/Read/View -> Team Members; Activity writes -> Operations-Activity; transactional writes -> full product licence based on functional area. Confidence: High (known module prefix) . Medium (keyword) . Low (fallback). Ends with a Optimization section: Team Members / Activity eligibility, role-split opportunities, per-user/month cost estimates (March 2026 MSRP). Always validate against the Microsoft D365 Licensing Guide. For a full multi-role scan, call trace_role_license_tree multiple times -- once per role. NOT for the pure technical duty/privilege/entry-point chain without licence inference -- use trace_security_chain for that.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleNameYesThe exact security role name, e.g. 'SystemAdministrator', 'AccountsPayablePaymentsClerk', 'ALMMyCustomRole'
maxEntryPointsNoMaximum entry points to show per privilege (default: 20, max: 100)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / roleName / description
      Previous value: -"The exact security role name, e.g. 'SystemAdministrator', 'AccountsPayablePaymentsClerk', 'HSOMyCustomRole'"New value: +"The exact security role name, e.g. 'SystemAdministrator', 'AccountsPayablePaymentsClerk', 'ALMMyCustomRole'"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: grant-level license classification, confidence levels, an Optimization section with cost estimates, and validation against the Microsoft licensing guide. This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide, and there is no contradiction.

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 long but front-loaded with WHEN and trigger information, and each section contributes to invocation or output interpretation. It could be slightly tighter, especially the repeated license-pricing details, but it remains organized and scannable for an agent.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the expected output sections: the tree, license classification with MSRP, confidence levels, and optimization advice. It covers the main invocation and interpretation needs, though edge behavior such as role-not-found handling is not addressed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema provides 100% coverage of both parameters, including examples for roleName and defaults for maxEntryPoints. The description reinforces the role-centric behavior but does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 names a specific action and resource: it builds the COMPLETE tree for ONE role (Role -> Duties -> Privileges -> Entry Points) and classifies the required D365 license per entry point. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling trace_security_chain, which handles the technical chain without license inference.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description opens with explicit WHEN scenarios and trigger phrases, including French triggers. It also gives direct routing guidance: call multiple times for a multi-role scan, and use trace_security_chain instead when license inference is not needed. This leaves no ambiguity about when to select this tool over alternatives.

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

All ALM X++ MCP Server toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources