Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Veynod

by io.github.veynod
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Open Admin Access

open_admin_access

Open audited content access to a subtree you administer from above; its owners are told at once. People only.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "node": "<node>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "open_admin_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nodeYes
reasonYes
duration_sNo
idempotency_keyNoOptional. Retries with the same key and arguments within 24 h replay the first result (replayed=true) without a second write; a different body with the same key is idempotency_key_reused.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses three real behaviors: the grant is audited, the subtree owners are notified immediately, and the caller must administer the subtree from above. The notable omission is lifetime behavior — duration_s defaults to 3600 with a 86400 cap, yet the description never says the access expires or how it is later closed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, the economy goes too far for a four-parameter mutating tool: brevity here means under-specification rather than discipline.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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 need no explanation, but this is still a non-read-only grant operation with 25% parameter coverage and no annotation of its own beyond safety flags. The definition leaves out access lifetime, who can revoke, and what node and reason mean, which is too thin for a permissions-changing tool.

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 only 25% and only idempotency_key is documented there. The description does not explain node (beyond the loose 'subtree' framing), reason (clearly an audit justification given the 'audited' wording, but never stated), or duration_s, leaving three of four parameters' meaning to inference.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a concrete operation and resource: opening audited content access to a subtree, scoped to nodes the caller administers. That is specific enough to act on, but it never distinguishes this from related siblings such as share or revoke_share, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

There is no stated when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative; 'People only' is a subject restriction rather than routing advice. The agent learns that it must administer the subtree, but nothing about prerequisites, when this is preferred over share, or how the access is withdrawn.

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

All Veynod 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