AgentAegis

access_review

Audit user access to ensure alignment with least-privilege principles. Detect excessive permissions and role inconsistencies.

Instructions

Audit user access against least-privilege.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "users": "<users>"
    },
    "name": "access_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`users`	Yes
`admin_roles`	No
`previous_scan_id`	No	Optional. A prior scan_id (from agent_history) to record as this call's parent — builds a traversable chained-workflow lineage retrievable via agent_scan_get. Must be one of your own scans; ignored otherwise. Does not change this tool's analysis.
`sensitive_permissions`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It labels the tool as an 'audit' but does not clarify if it is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the output contains, leaving significant behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one phrase) but lacks essential information, making it under-informative. It is not well-structured for a tool with multiple parameters and complex usage.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 4 parameters (one required with nested fields), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides almost no context. The agent cannot determine expected input format, output, or how the audit works, making it incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 25% (only 'previous_scan_id' has a description). The tool description adds no meaning to the parameters; it does not explain the purpose of 'users', 'admin_roles', or 'sensitive_permissions', leaving the agent to guess their roles.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb 'Audit' and resource 'user access' with a clear principle 'least-privilege', but it does not differentiate from sibling audit tools like 'audit_report_generate' or 'compliance_framework_check', leaving ambiguity in scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; the description is a single phrase without context, and sibling tools list is long with no differentiation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.