mcp-freeipa

get_hbac_rule

Retrieve detailed information about a specific FreeIPA HBAC rule by its common name, enabling quick access to rule configuration and attributes.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific FreeIPA HBAC rule by its name.

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": {
      "cn": "<cn>"
    },
    "name": "get_hbac_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cn`	Yes	The common name (cn) of the HBAC rule to retrieve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Get' signals a read-only retrieval, and 'by its name' indicates the lookup key, but the description does not mention behavior for non-existent rules, required permissions, or what 'detailed information' includes. This is acceptable but not rich for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the action, resource, and lookup key. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple one-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, the lookup method, and the kind of result. It does not enumerate the returned fields, but 'detailed information' gives a reasonable expectation, and the tool's low complexity keeps the gaps minor.

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?

The schema already fully describes the single parameter cn with 100% coverage. The description's phrase 'by its name' reinforces that cn is the rule name, but it does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a clear verb ('Get'), a specific resource ('detailed information about a specific FreeIPA HBAC rule'), and the selection mechanism ('by its name'). This clearly distinguishes it from list_hbac_rules, which would list rules rather than retrieve one in detail.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies the correct usage context: when you know the name of a specific HBAC rule and need its details. It does not explicitly compare against alternatives like list_hbac_rules, but the 'specific... by its name' wording makes the intended use clear.

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