Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Object-Authz Lab

MCP Object-Authz Lab

by WRG-11
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

note_get_scoped

Lists the caller's notes within their organization scope by honoring the X-Org-Id routing header. Helps identify BOLA/IDOR vulnerabilities in multi-tenant access control.

Instructions

List the caller's notes. Honors an X-Org-Id routing header set by the API gateway.

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": {
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "note_get_scoped"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv3.10.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a meaningful behavior: the tool honors an X-Org-Id routing header set by the API gateway. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, or whether the org header changes which notes are visible.

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?

The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the routing behavior is added concisely without redundancy or repetition of schema information.

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?

For a one-parameter list tool, the description provides the core operation and a useful routing detail. However, with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, it would benefit from clarifying the token's role and how 'scoped' differs from note_list or note_get_by_token_scope.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description never explains the required 'token' parameter. 'List the caller's notes' indirectly implies that token identifies the caller, but the agent is left to infer this rather than being told.

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 clearly states the operation ('List') and the resource ('the caller's notes'), giving an unambiguous purpose and a specific scope. It stops short of explicitly distinguishing itself from similar siblings like note_list or note_get_by_token_scope, so it misses a perfect score.

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?

The phrase 'List the caller's notes' implies the main use case: returning notes owned by the current caller. However, it does not state when to prefer this tool over note_list, note_get_by_token_scope, or note_search, nor does it give any exclusions or alternative routing guidance.

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