warp-mcp

Get a role

team_get_role

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a role's complete scope list to verify exact permissions before assigning or editing it. Get full role details to make informed access decisions.

Instructions

Get one role (system or customer-owned) with its full scope list. Use to inspect exactly what a role grants before assigning it (team_update_member_role) or editing it (team_update_role). Requires the team:read scope.

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": {
      "customer_id": "<customer_id>",
      "role_id": "<role_id>"
    },
    "name": "team_get_role"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role_id`	Yes	Role UUID (find it via team_list_roles)
`customer_id`	Yes	Your customer UUID (shown in the WARP portal under Settings)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. Description adds the requirement of team:read scope, which is additional context beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states core purpose, second gives usage context, third specifies permissions. Perfectly front-loaded and balanced.

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 simple read tool with comprehensive annotations and full schema coverage, the description covers purpose, usage, and permissions. No output schema, but description doesn't need to detail return values. Slightly lacking in explaining what 'full scope list' entails, but sufficient.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds practical guidance: role_id can be found via team_list_roles, customer_id is from WARP portal. This extra context enhances understanding beyond schema alone.

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 it retrieves a single role with its full scope list, using specific verbs and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like team_list_roles, team_create_role, and team_delete_role by mentioning inspection for assignment or editing.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use context: before assigning a role via team_update_member_role or editing via team_update_role. Also states the required team:read scope. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use but is clear enough for selection.

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

Deploy Server