datalens_collections_permissions_get_rootChecks if you can create a collection and a workbook at the root level. Use it to verify root permissions before attempting creation.
Whether the caller may create a collection and a workbook in the root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the check concerns creating a collection and a workbook in the root, but it does not disclose the return format (e.g., boolean vs. object) or any auth requirements, leaving a behavioral gap.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple permission check, though it could add a short clause about the return value without harming conciseness.
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 zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description states the permission being checked but omits what the response contains. With no output schema, this is a noticeable gap for an agent that needs to know whether the result is a simple boolean or a structured permission object.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema cannot convey parameter meaning. The baseline for no parameters is 4; the description correctly adds no parameter detail because none exist.
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 specifies a permission check at the root for creating a collection and a workbook, which distinguishes it from generic permission getters. However, it is phrased as a question rather than a verb+resource statement and does not name or differentiate from sibling tools like datalens_entries_permissions_get.
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, prerequisites, or alternatives are provided. The agent could infer it is a pre-flight check before collection or workbook creation, but the description offers no guidance on when to call this tool versus other permission-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.