Suggest a role-based auth test matrix for a given endpoint, mapping expected access outcomes to identify authorization gaps and strengthen API security.
Suggest auth test matrix for roles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| roles | Yes | Comma-separated roles | |
| endpoint | Yes | Endpoint |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. 'Suggest' implies an informational, non-mutating operation, but the description does not explain what the matrix contains, whether it performs any checks, what inputs drive it, or what the agent should expect in return.
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, short sentence with no filler or redundant explanation. It is front-loaded with the action and deliverable, making it easy to scan, though it may be too sparse to provide full value.
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 simple two-parameter tool with fully documented schema properties, this is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain more about the nature of the 'auth test matrix' and how the endpoint is used, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 even though the description itself adds little parameter-level detail. The description mentions roles but does not clarify how the endpoint parameter factors into the suggested matrix, so it adds limited meaning beyond the schema.
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 a specific action ('Suggest') and a clear deliverable ('auth test matrix for roles'). It is not a tautology and conveys the tool's core purpose, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tools apiauth_status and apiauth_probe.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus apiauth_status or apiauth_probe. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer suitable usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.