OpenFGA MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is for 'lookup' (implying read-only), but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details the output format (e.g., tree structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence in Korean that front-loads the core purpose ('OpenFGA permission tree expansion') and specifies the action ('lookup of permission relationship trees for a specific object'). Every word contributes meaning with zero waste.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (permission tree expansion), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, output format, and usage distinctions from siblings. It's complete enough to understand the basic function but insufficient for optimal agent operation without additional context.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, fully documenting all 4 parameters (env, storeId, relation, object) with examples and enum values. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating value.

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 clearly states the verb ('expand') and resource ('OpenFGA permission tree'), specifying it retrieves permission relationship trees for a particular object. It distinguishes from siblings like 'openfga_check' (permission verification) and 'openfga_tuple_read' (tuple retrieval), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'specific object permission relationship tree lookup,' suggesting it's for exploring permission hierarchies rather than checking permissions or managing tuples. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'openfga_list_objects' or 'openfga_tuple_read,' and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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