Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
portkey-admin-mcp

portkey-admin-mcp

by CodesWhat
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_access_policy

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an access policy's subjects, targets, effect, and version before updating it, so replacement lists and optimistic concurrency use the latest policy state.

Instructions

Read one access policy's complete subjects, targets, effect, and current version. Use this before update_access_policy so replacement lists and optimistic concurrency use the latest state. Returns policy details; a missing policy returns HTTP 404.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_access_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesAccess policy UUID from list_access_policies or create_access_policy

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the tool call succeeded and returned structured data
dataNoStructured success payload when ok is true
errorNoStructured error payload when ok is false

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.9
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • changedOutput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
  2. Addedv1.0.8

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it explains that callers need the current version for optimistic concurrency and that a missing policy yields HTTP 404.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what it does, then why to call it, then the error behavior. No filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return shape needs no explanation, and the description still notes what fields matter plus the 404 case. For a single-param read tool this is essentially complete; only the list-vs-get routing is left implicit.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the id parameter is already documented with its source (list_access_policies or create_access_policy), so the description adds nothing about parameters. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read one access policy') and enumerates what the read returns (subjects, targets, effect, current version), which cleanly separates it from list_access_policies.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit sequencing guidance ('Use this before update_access_policy') and explains why (replacement lists and optimistic concurrency need the latest state). It does not name the case where listing is the right call instead, so it falls just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools