Retrieve all roles assigned to a specific Brivo administrator by ID, so you can review their permissions and access level.
List the roles assigned to an administrator.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| administratorId | Yes | The Brivo administrator id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, covering the safety profile, but the description adds nothing beyond that: no return format, pagination, ordering, or note on what happens if the administrator has no roles. It is a pure restatement of the tool name.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler and no redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly the source of the definition's other gaps rather than a deliberate trade-off.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the definition is minimally viable: an agent knows what it fetches and what input it needs. It lacks return-value context and any differentiation from closely related role/assignment tools.
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% with one documented parameter ('The Brivo administrator id.'), so the schema carries full parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, which meets the baseline 3 for high coverage.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (roles assigned to an administrator), so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does no sibling differentiation despite overlapping tools like Get_admin_assignments and Role: List_roles that an agent could confuse with it.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. It does not clarify how this differs from Get_admin_assignments or Role: List_roles, leaving the agent to infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.