Action1 MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_roles

Read-only

Retrieve Action1 tenant roles with pagination and optional text filtering. Check total, then use limit and offset to page through matching roles.

Instructions

List roles. Returns one page {total, offset, has_more, items} (limit default 20, max 200). contains is Action1's server-side text filter on the items' own fields (e.g. CVE id or product name for vulnerabilities) - check total before paging through everything.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_roles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`contains`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description usefully adds the pagination shape {total, offset, has_more, items} plus the limit default/max. However, the illustrative filter example ('CVE id or product name for vulnerabilities') is misplaced on a roles tool and risks confusing the agent about what is being listed.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose ('List roles') then layers return shape and paging advice in an economical two-sentence block. The CVE/product clause is off-topic noise that slightly dilutes otherwise tight phrasing.

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 present, the description steps in to define the return envelope and document pagination bounds, which is the key missing structure for a low-complexity list tool. Only the unexplained `offset` keeps it from being fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains `contains` as a server-side text filter and gives limit bounds (default 20, max 200), but leaves `offset` unexplained, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.

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?

States a clear verb+resource ('List roles'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling list_* tools, but the purpose itself is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implied usage only: it hints at a paging workflow ('check `total` before paging through everything') and describes the `contains` filter, but never states when to use this tool versus siblings or what preconditions apply.

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