machship-mcp

Get Available Roles

machship_get_available_roles

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves all assignable user roles for a specified company ID, helping you determine which roles can be granted to users.

Instructions

Get all roles that are available to assign to users of a certain company.

Args:

companyId (number): Company ID

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`companyId`	Yes	Company ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`errors`	No	Validation errors returned by Machship, if any
`object`	No	Response payload from the Machship API

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.1Nov 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / companyId / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": {},
+  "properties": {
+    "errors": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "items": {},
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "Validation errors returned by Machship, if any"
+    },
+    "object": {
+      "description": "Response payload from the Machship API"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedv1.0.0Jun 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether inactive or system roles are included, what permissions the caller needs, or whether the result depends on the calling identity's organisation. With annotations doing the heavy lifting, this is a minimal contribution.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core sentence is front-loaded and efficient, but the trailing 'Args:' block duplicates the JSON schema verbatim and adds length without information. The definition is short overall, so it is not bloated, just partially redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with one required scalar parameter this is a simple tool. Still, for a company-scoped lookup the description never clarifies authorisation or scope boundaries, leaving it merely adequate rather than complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'Company ID' in the schema. The description's Args block restates exactly that, adding no format, source, or constraint details (e.g. whether companyId must be one the caller is linked to). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter documentation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Get all roles that are available to assign to users of a certain company.' This is recognizable as a read operation scoped to a company. No sibling tool deals with roles, so differentiation is implicit rather than explicit, which keeps it below a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The phrase 'available to assign to users' implies the tool's place in a role-assignment workflow, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no mention of what to do when a role is missing from the result, and no named alternative. Usage is only derivable from purpose.

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

Deploy Server