mcp-freeipa

get_sudo_rule

Retrieve detailed information about a FreeIPA sudo rule by its common name to verify configuration or troubleshoot access control.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific FreeIPA sudo 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_sudo_rule"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get detailed information' and does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, describe what happens when the rule does not exist, or mention any authorization requirements.

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?

The description is a single clear sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, making it quick for an agent to parse.

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 single-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it identifies the resource type, the lookup key, and the kind of information returned. Some behavioral and alternative-tool context is missing, but it is sufficient for direct invocation.

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 coverage is 100% for the single required cn parameter, so the schema already explains the parameter fully. The description's 'by its name' adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema property description.

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 clearly states the action ('Get'), the resource ('specific FreeIPA sudo rule'), and the selection criterion ('by its name'). It is easily distinguished from sibling list tools like list_sudo_rules, which enumerate multiple rules.

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 makes clear that this tool is for retrieving a single named sudo rule, implying it should be used when the rule's cn is already known. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives such as list_sudo_rules for enumeration, stopping short of a full 5.

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