Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
healthsec-mcp

healthsec-mcp

by MichaelEnny
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

check_rbac

Evaluate RBAC enforcement by comparing expected access outcomes with observed status codes from your probes. Score how well your role-based access controls match security requirements.

Instructions

Score RBAC enforcement from already-executed endpoint/role probes.

    This tool does not make live HTTP calls -- probe the system
    yourself and pass the results here. Each entry needs `expected`
    ("ALLOWED" or "DENIED") and the observed `status_code`.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "probe_results": "<probe_results>"
    },
    "name": "check_rbac"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
probe_resultsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the non-live nature and required input fields, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or output behavior.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words — purpose and key usage constraints are front-loaded.

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?

Provides essential info but lacks description of return value or scoring logic. For a tool with no output schema, this gap reduces completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%. The description adds critical meaning by specifying that each object in probe_results needs 'expected' (ALLOWED/DENIED) and 'status_code', which the schema does not define.

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 scores RBAC enforcement from already-executed probes, distinguishing it from sibling tools that make live calls or perform other analyses.

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?

Explicitly says the tool does not make live HTTP calls and instructs the user to probe the system first and pass results — providing clear when-to-use and context.

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