datalens_entries_permissions_getRetrieve permissions for DataLens entries by ID. Returns a map of allowed actions per entry, with NOT_FOUND for missing entries.
What the caller may do with each entry, as a map by id.
An entry that does not exist gives error: "NOT_FOUND" under its id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry_ids | Yes | Entry ids. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.122.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail about missing entries returning error NOT_FOUND under their id, which is beyond what the annotations provide.
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 consists of two tight sentences with the core output shape front-loaded and the not-found behavior immediately after. There is no wasted wording.
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?
Given the read-only annotations, complete parameter schema, and absence of an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It explains the return shape as a map by id and covers a key error case, though it could more explicitly state what the permission values represent.
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% for the single entry_ids parameter, so the schema already carries the full parameter documentation. The description adds no additional syntax or format details for entry_ids, making the baseline 3 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?
The description clearly states the resource (entries) and the result (a map by id of what the caller may do), which effectively describes permissions retrieval. It does not, however, distinguish this tool from related permission or entry-listing siblings such as datalens_permissions_get_bulk or datalens_entries_list.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like datalens_permissions_get_bulk or datalens_audit_entry_permissions_get. It only describes the output, leaving usage context implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.