Check whoami and sensitive/write flags to confirm actual HCM privileges before running REST operations. HTTP authentication alone does not grant HCM permissions.
RBAC hint: reminds that HTTP auth ≠ HCM privileges; returns whoami + sensitive/write flags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds the key conceptual warning that HTTP auth differs from HCM privileges and discloses the tool's output content. It does not detail the exact meaning of the flags, but the read-only behavior is already annotated.
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?
The description is a single compact sentence with the main caveat front-loaded. The only minor redundancy is 'RBAC hint' restating the tool name, but overall it is efficient.
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 zero-parameter informational tool, the description adequately conveys what the tool returns and why it matters. Since there is no output schema, more detail about the shape of 'sensitive/write flags' would improve completeness, but the current level is sufficient for invocation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers the input side and the description needs no parameter clarification. The baseline of 4 applies.
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?
The description states the tool returns whoami plus sensitive/write flags and frames the operation as an RBAC hint, so the agent understands the deliverable. It is not a tautology, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from hcm_whoami.
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?
The description conveys a clear usage context: the agent should not assume HTTP authentication implies HCM privileges and can use this tool to get privilege-related flags. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.