sa-ecosystem-node

Profile key audit

profile_key_audit

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists keys on a player profile with address, scope, expiry, decoded permissions, and heuristic risk flags; read-only and does not use or grant keys.

Instructions

List keys on a player profile: address, scope, expiry, decoded permissions, and heuristic risk flags. Read-only. Does not use or grant those keys.

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": {
      "profileAddress": "<profileAddress>"
    },
    "name": "profile_key_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`profileAddress`	Yes	Player profile account address.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is mostly covered. The description still adds real value by clarifying that the returned keys are not consumed or granted, and by disclosing the derived fields (decoded permissions, heuristic risk flags) an agent should expect. It lacks detail on pagination, key caps, or behavior for an unknown profile address.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: the resource and returned fields come first, followed by the read-only and no-side-effects guarantees. Every sentence contributes distinct information.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a one-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what comes back by naming the returned fields and noting the keys are not used or granted. Only edge-case behavior, such as an unknown or keyless profile or result limits, is left unaddressed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Player profile account address'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds no further constraints, format, or validation detail beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List keys on a player profile') and enumerates exactly what is returned: address, scope, expiry, decoded permissions, and heuristic risk flags. That is far more informative than the title restated, though it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling tool.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the audit framing and the 'Read-only. Does not use or grant those keys' caveat, which tells an agent it is safe for inspection. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite statement, and no alternative tool is named.

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