Retrieve all sudo rules from FreeIPA, showing applicable users, target hosts, and allowed or denied commands. Filter by rule name to quickly audit privilege definitions.
List all sudo rules defined in FreeIPA. Returns who each rule applies to, which hosts, and what commands are allowed or denied.
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly identifies this as a read-only listing operation and describes the kind of data returned. However, it does not mention behavior such as pagination, result size limits, ordering, or error handling, which could matter for large FreeIPA deployments.
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 is a single front-loaded sentence: 'List all sudo rules defined in FreeIPA' immediately establishes the action and scope, followed by a compact summary of the returned fields. No filler or redundant 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?
For a list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description explains the main purpose and the high-level structure of the return value. It is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly, though it could explicitly mention that omitting the filter returns all rules, which is already implied by 'List all'.
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% because the sole parameter 'cn' already has a description ('Filter by rule name (cn) — substring match'). The description text adds no further parameter insight; it does not even mention the filter, but the schema fully covers it, so the baseline score of 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 starts with 'List all sudo rules defined in FreeIPA,' which names a specific verb and resource. It then clarifies the output contents (who rules apply to, hosts, allowed/denied commands), and the plural name distinguishes it from get_sudo_rule (single rule) and list_hbac_rules (different rule type). Clear and unambiguous.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent can infer that it is for enumerating sudo rules rather than fetching a single rule (get_sudo_rule) or handling HBAC rules (list_hbac_rules), but this guidance is only implied, not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.