roles_permissions_listList entity permissions assigned to a specific role by providing its role ID, enabling access audits and RBAC management.
List entity permissions for a role
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role_id | Yes | Role ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.27Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds essentially nothing beyond the title — no note on pagination, result size, or what a role with no permissions returns — so it does not earn credit for extra behavioral context.
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 tight sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded. Nothing redundant is present; it is appropriately sized for a trivial list operation.
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?
With no output schema, the description is the only place return values could be described, and it does not say what the permission objects contain or their shape. Combined with the absence of any 'returns empty list if unset' style note, it is only minimally complete for a read tool.
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 a single parameter (role_id: integer, 'Role ID'), so the schema carries the burden. The description adds no semantics beyond what the schema states, which is the baseline-3 case for full 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?
The description gives a clear verb+resource: 'List entity permissions for a role'. It is distinguishable from siblings roles_permissions_add and roles_permissions_remove by the 'List' verb. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those siblings, and 'entity permissions' is slightly ambiguous about whether it returns the permission set or the entities.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. Usage is only implied by the sibling naming convention (add/remove/list), which an agent can reasonably infer, but the description itself does no routing work.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.