Get Permissions

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read via 'Get' and names the returned levels, but says nothing about read-only safety, required auth/permissions, whether it covers only explicitly-set levels or defaults, or failure behavior for an unknown server_name.

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

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

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Appropriately sized for a simple single-parameter read tool.

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

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the value it returns and the server scope. It stops short of describing the return shape or the meaning of unset permissions, which is the only thing an agent might still need.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single server_name parameter has no documentation. The phrase 'configured for the server' lightly implies the parameter selects the target server, but the description adds essentially no syntax or format detail beyond the self-explanatory name.

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

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Get player permission levels') and scopes it to the server, with the enum of levels (visitor, member, operator) clarifying what kind of permissions. It implicitly but clearly contrasts with the write-side sibling set_permission. It doesn't explicitly name that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as set_permission or get_allowlist. The agent must infer that this is the read counterpart to set_permission.

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