Discover which roles have privileges on schemas, tables, and columns, with optional filters for schema, table, or object type.
Discover privileges granted to roles on schemas, tables, and columns (FR-002c)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | No | Optional table filter | |
| schema | No | Optional schema filter (e.g. 'public') | |
| objectType | No | Optional object type filter: 'schema', 'table', or 'column' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the description's only added value is the object scope (schemas/tables/columns). It says nothing about what is returned per grant, whether results are filtered by the caller's own privileges, or what an unfiltered call yields. '(FR-002c)' is an internal requirement tag with no meaning to an agent.
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 no redundant wording; the only wasted token is the trailing '(FR-002c)' reference.
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 read-only, filterable list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose but not the return shape (role, object, privilege type) or the meaning of an unfiltered call. Adequate to select the tool, incomplete for predicting its output.
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% and all three filters are documented there, including the objectType enum, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description names the three object scopes but adds no filter semantics beyond what the schema states.
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 ('Discover') and resource ('privileges granted to roles on schemas, tables, and columns'), which is enough to distinguish it from list_roles and describe_table. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it complements, so it is clear but not maximally differentiating.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus list_roles or describe_table, and no prerequisites (e.g., that only grants visible to the current role may be returned). The only usage signal is implicit in the word 'Discover' and the optional filters in the schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.