Skip to main content
Glama
J-MaFf

s2-netbox-mcp

by J-MaFf
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_card_access_details

Retrieve access details for a specific card using its encoded number and card format. Optionally include the card owner's name fields and human-readable reader descriptions.

Instructions

Returns card/credential access details for a given card (wraps NBAPI GetCardAccessDetails). Identifies the card by ENCODEDNUM + CARDFORMAT, not PERSONID — GetCardAccessDetails has no PERSONID parameter. RESOLVEDESCRIPTIONS defaults to true — an inverted, opt-out default (unlike most optional booleans in this codebase): each returned ACCESS record is enriched with the reader's human-readable READERDESCRIPTION via one GetReaders full-table fetch per call (not per record); set RESOLVEDESCRIPTIONS: false to skip it. Set RESOLVENAMES: true to enrich the response with the card owner's FIRSTNAME/LASTNAME/FULLNAME/NOTES (default false — off) via a single GetPerson lookup for the card's one PERSONID — cheaper than get_access_history's RESOLVENAMES, which pays one GetPerson call per distinct person across many records, since a card has exactly one owner. The four fields land on the top level of the response, alongside PERSONID/DISABLED/EXPDATE, not on each ACCESS record.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
CARDFORMATYesRequired. The card format of ENCODEDNUM.
ENCODEDNUMYesRequired. The encoded card number whose access details should be retrieved.
MAXRECORDSNoOptional. Maximum number of access records to return.
OLDESTDTTMNoOptional. Oldest date/time to include in the returned access records.
RESOLVENAMESNoOptional (default false). Enrich the top level of the response with the card owner's FIRSTNAME/LASTNAME/FULLNAME/NOTES via a single GetPerson lookup for the response's top-level PERSONID (one lookup per call, not one per ACCESS record — a card has exactly one owner).
RESOLVEDESCRIPTIONSNoOptional (default true — on by default; the inverse of this codebase's usual optional-boolean default). Enrich each returned ACCESS record with the reader's human-readable READERDESCRIPTION via one GetReaders full-table fetch per call (not per record). Set to false to skip it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / RESOLVEDESCRIPTIONS
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional (default true — on by default; the inverse of this codebase's usual optional-boolean default). Enrich each returned ACCESS record with the reader's human-readable READERDESCRIPTION via one GetReaders full-table fetch per call (not per record). Set to false to skip it.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / RESOLVENAMES
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional (default false). Enrich the top level of the response with the card owner's FIRSTNAME/LASTNAME/FULLNAME/NOTES via a single GetPerson lookup for the response's top-level PERSONID (one lookup per call, not one per ACCESS record — a card has exactly one owner).",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. First observedv0.2.3

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses several non-obvious behaviors: the inverted default of RESOLVEDESCRIPTIONS (true instead of false), the performance cost of a GetReaders full-table fetch per call, and the single GetPerson lookup for RESOLVENAMES. It also explains where enriched fields land (top-level vs per-record). This is a highly transparent description.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then logically proceeds through identification, defaults, cost trade-offs, and response placement. Despite its length, there is no filler—every clause conveys essential information about behavior, defaults, or alternatives.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given a complex tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, identification method, parameter defaults, performance cost, response structure, and comparison with a sibling. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter. However, the description adds significant extra meaning: for RESOLVEDESCRIPTIONS it explains the inverted default and the exact performance impact; for RESOLVENAMES it clarifies the single-lookup efficiency and differentiates it from get_access_history. These details directly enrich the agent's understanding beyond the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Returns card/credential access details for a given card'. It specifies the identifying parameters (ENCODEDNUM + CARDFORMAT) and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting that it does not use PERSONID. This leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools like get_access_history.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use it (when you have ENCODEDNUM and CARDFORMAT) and when not (it has no PERSONID parameter). It also compares with get_access_history on RESOLVENAMES cost, providing a clear basis for choosing between the two. This is explicit usage guidance with alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools