Slack Max API MCP

ops_access_policy_info

View access-control profiles, effective rules, pending elevation requests, and active grants to manage Slack workspace permissions.

Instructions

Show access-control profiles, effective rules, pending elevation requests, and active grants.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ops_access_policy_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.13Mar 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. While 'Show' implies a read-only operation, the description does not explicitly confirm it is non-destructive, disclose required permissions, or explain the output format/structure given the absence of an output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence of nine words. Every word earns its place by identifying either the operation type or specific data categories returned. No redundancy or filler content is present.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a zero-parameter information retrieval tool, the description adequately identifies the data domains covered. However, given the lack of output schema and the complex operational context (many sibling access management tools), it omits expected details about output structure, pagination, or filtering limitations.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema contains zero parameters. Per the evaluation rules, 0 parameters establishes a baseline score of 4. There are no parameters requiring semantic elaboration beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'Show' and enumerates four distinct resources (access-control profiles, effective rules, pending elevation requests, active grants). It implicitly distinguishes from action-oriented siblings (approve, set, revoke) through the read-only verb choice, though it lacks explicit contrast with ops_policy_info or ops_access_request.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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. It does not indicate that ops_access_policy_set should be used for modifications, or that ops_access_request is for creating new requests rather than viewing pending ones.

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