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 but only states the action ('조회' - read). It doesn't mention whether this is a safe read operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format might be, or any rate limits. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 phrase that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately front-loaded and earns its place by clearly communicating the core function in minimal text.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what '튜플(권한 관계)' entails in practice, how results are returned, or any behavioral constraints. The agent would lack sufficient context to use this tool effectively beyond basic parameter passing.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with all parameters well-documented in the input schema (e.g., env with enum values, storeId with default behavior, user/relation/object as filters). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already provides, so it meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 '조회' (read/retrieve) and resource '튜플(권한 관계)' (tuples/permission relationships), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this read operation from other tuple-related tools like openfga_tuple_write or openfga_tuple_delete, which would require explicit sibling differentiation for a score of 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the sibling tools include openfga_check, openfga_expand, and openfga_list_objects, which might overlap in permission-related queries, the absence of usage context or exclusions leaves the agent without direction for tool selection.

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