data_rlsView or set row-level security access for a user on a record by entity and ID, with optional read-only permission.
View or set RLS (row-level security) user access on a record
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Record ID | |
| user | No | User ID to grant access to | |
| entity | Yes | Entity name | |
| readonly | No | Grant read-only access (default: full access) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.27Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds only the vague 'view or set' dual-mode and says nothing about what 'set' destroys (existing access grants), whether it replaces or appends, or what the response looks like — a meaningful gap for a tool flagged destructive.
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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Nothing to trim.
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 destructive, dual-mode tool with no output schema and four parameters, the description is too thin: it never explains how view vs set is triggered (presumably the presence of `user`), nor the effect of `readonly`, nor what happens to existing access. An agent would have to guess before invoking a destructive call.
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 each of the four parameters (id, user, entity, readonly) fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 pair (view/set) and resource (RLS user access) scoped to a record, so it is distinguishable from data_get/data_update siblings. However, the dual-mode 'view or set' is never resolved — the description doesn't say which input selects which mode, leaving the actual operation ambiguous.
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 guidance, no conditions, and no reference to alternatives such as data_update or roles_permissions_add. An agent cannot tell from the description whether this is the right tool for granting a user access versus some other permission mechanism.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.