lab-mcp-identity-server

grant_access

Add a user to a group by providing user ID, group name, and required justification. Protected groups gate with human approval.

Instructions

Add a user to a group. Normal groups are Tier 2; protected groups are Tier 3 and fail closed until gated.

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": {
      "userId": "<userId>",
      "group": "<group>",
      "justification": "<justification>"
    },
    "name": "grant_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`group`	Yes	Group name
`userId`	Yes	Okta user id
`justification`	Yes	Required justification

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 16, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that protected groups (Tier 3) fail closed until gated, which is valuable. However, it does not indicate required permissions, reversibility, or response behavior, which are important for a mutation tool.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds a key behavioral nuance. All information is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description moderately covers the tool's behavior. It explains the core action and a critical failure mode, but lacks details on success outcomes, error conditions, and differentiation from siblings, leaving some gaps for an agent.

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%, so the schema already describes all three parameters. The description adds no additional parameter-level details beyond the schema, but it does provide context about group tiers, which indirectly relates to the 'group' parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states it adds a user to a group, with specific verb and resource. It differentiates between normal and protected groups, providing some context for distinguishing from sibling tools like 'revoke_access', though it could be more explicit.

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 description provides context about tier-based failure behavior (Tier 2 vs Tier 3), which aids in usage decisions for different group types. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'provision_user' or 'revoke_access', leaving room for ambiguity.

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

Deploy Server