List all HBAC rules in FreeIPA to review or filter which users can access which hosts and services. Use to audit access control policies.
List all Host-Based Access Control (HBAC) rules in FreeIPA. HBAC rules control which users can access which hosts and services.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cn | No | Filter by rule name (cn) — substring match |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' implies a read operation but non-destructiveness and auth requirements are never stated. The scope claim 'all' is also undercut by the optional cn filter, which the description does not acknowledge, and no return behavior is characterized.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence successfully earns its place by explaining what HBAC rules are, helping an agent unfamiliar with FreeIPA domain terminology.
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 low-complexity tool (1 optional param, schema fully documents it), the description is adequate but has gaps: there is no output schema, so the response shape is opaque; the cn-filtered result being a subset of 'all' is not reconciled; and the relationship to get_hbac_rule for single-rule retrieval is unaddressed.
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% — cn is fully documented with its substring-match filter semantics. The description adds nothing about parameters, which is acceptable at this coverage level. Baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('List all ... HBAC rules in FreeIPA') and adds a clarifying sentence explaining what HBAC rules do. It is distinguishable from list_sudo_rules by rule type and from get_hbac_rule by the list-vs-single contrast, though it never names these siblings explicitly.
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 implies the usage context: if you want all HBAC rules, this is the tool. The definition of what HBAC rules govern provides weak routing context against list_sudo_rules. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer get_hbac_rule for a specific rule or any statement about what this tool is NOT for.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.