Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
INFATON MCP35

INFATON MCP35

Official
by infaton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

get_rights

Retrieve current user's access rights for a metadata object, including read, add, modify, delete, and post permissions.

Instructions

Получить права доступа текущего пользователя к объекту метаданных. Возвращает: чтение, добавление, изменение, удаление, проведение и др.

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": {
      "full_name": "<full_name>"
    },
    "name": "get_rights"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
full_nameYesПолное имя объекта (например: Документ.ЗаказКлиента)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv2.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It outlines the return values (rights list) and that it applies to the current user, but lacks details on error handling, permissions required, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and return list. Every word is relevant, no redundancy or filler. Efficiently communicates the core information.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and return values. It lacks mention of error conditions or edge cases, but is sufficient for basic usage.

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%, and the schema already describes the parameter (full_name) meaning. The tool description adds no additional semantics about the parameter, so baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'rights', specifying it returns access rights for the current user. It lists specific rights (read, add, etc.), distinguishing it from siblings like get_object_metadata.

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 implies usage when needing user rights to an object but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_object_metadata or get_list. No exclusions or context are provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools