List available rights for a Marketplace partner to manage user permissions and access control.
Return the current hierarchical permission dictionary available to Marketplace system users.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| partner_id | Yes |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the data is 'current' and 'hierarchical', which is mild context, but it omits the return structure and the role that partner_id plays in scoping the result.
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 that names the resource first with no filler. Efficient, though the terseness comes partly from missing information rather than disciplined editing.
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 read-only lookup with no output schema and one required parameter, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves the meaning of partner_id and the shape of the returned 'dictionary' entirely unexplained, which an agent would need to call it correctly.
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 0% and there is one parameter (partner_id) that the description never mentions. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap by explaining whose partner_id scopes the rights or what values are valid.
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 ('Return') and resource ('hierarchical permission dictionary available to Marketplace system users'), so an agent knows it retrieves a permission structure. It is clear on its own but does not differentiate itself from any sibling (none returns rights), so it falls short of a 5.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. The phrase 'available to Marketplace system users' hints at scope but does not tell the agent when this lookup is appropriate versus other marketplace tools that also return configuration data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.