roles_permissions_removeRemove read, create, update, or delete permissions for an entity from a role. Use role ID and entity name to revoke specific access, defaulting to read.
Remove entity permissions from a role
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entity | Yes | Entity name | |
| actions | No | Comma-separated actions: read,create,update,delete (default: read) | |
| 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 destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether removals are reversible, whether they require specific privileges, or what the default 'read' action behavior means when actions is omitted.
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 zero padding. It is efficient, though its extreme brevity leaves the definition under-specified.
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?
There is no output schema and this is a destructive mutation, so the description could reasonably explain the effect of removal or the meaning of the actions filter. Annotations carry the safety signal, and the schema covers parameters, but the definition is thin for a permission-revoking operation.
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%, so the schema already documents role_id, entity, and actions (including the default of 'read'). The description only restates the resource and adds no format or behavioral meaning beyond the schema; 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 ('Remove') and resource ('entity permissions from a role'), which distinguishes it from siblings roles_permissions_add and roles_permissions_list. It stops short of explicitly naming the counterpart tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as roles_permissions_add or roles_permissions_list. An agent must infer context entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.