Skip to main content
Glama
jfrog

JFrog MCP Server

Official
by jfrog

jfrog_get_permission_target

Retrieve detailed information about a specific permission target in the JFrog Platform to manage access control effectively.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific permission target

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name of the permission target to retrieve

Implementation Reference

  • Tool registration object defining the 'jfrog_get_permission_target' tool, including name, description, input schema, and handler function that delegates to getPermissionTarget.
    const getPermissionTargetTool = {
      name: "jfrog_get_permission_target",
      description: "Get detailed information about a specific permission target",
      inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(z.object({
        name: z.string().describe("The name of the permission target to retrieve")
      })),
      //outputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(PermissionTargetSchema),
      handler: async (args: any) => {
        return await getPermissionTarget(args.name);
      }
    };
  • The tool's handler function which executes the logic by calling getPermissionTarget with the provided name argument.
    handler: async (args: any) => {
      return await getPermissionTarget(args.name);
    }
  • Core helper function that makes the HTTP GET request to the JFrog API to fetch the permission target details and parses the response using PermissionTargetSchema.
    export async function getPermissionTarget(name: string) {
      const response = await jfrogRequest(`/access/api/v2/permissions/${name}`, {
        method: "GET",
      });
      return PermissionTargetSchema.parse(response);
    }
  • Zod schema for validating the structure of a PermissionTarget object, used to parse the API response in getPermissionTarget.
    const PermissionTargetSchema = z.object({
      name: z.string(),
      resources: z.object({
        artifact: ArtifactResourceSchema.optional(),
        release_bundle: ReleaseBundleResourceSchema.optional(),
        build: BuildResourceSchema.optional()
      }),
      created_by: z.string().optional(),
      modified_by: z.string().optional()
    });
  • Input schema for the tool, defining the required 'name' parameter converted to JSON schema for MCP.
    inputSchema: zodToJsonSchema(z.object({
      name: z.string().describe("The name of the permission target to retrieve")
    })),
  • Local array registering multiple permission-related tools, including getPermissionTargetTool, exported for inclusion in main tools list.
    export const PermissionsTools = [
      listPermissionTargetsTool,
      getPermissionTargetTool,
      createPermissionTargetTool,
      updatePermissionTargetTool,
      deletePermissionTargetTool,
      getPermissionResourceTool,
      updatePermissionResourceTool,
      replacePermissionResourceTool,
      deletePermissionResourceTool
    ]; 
  • tools/index.ts:13-23 (registration)
    Main tools export array that spreads PermissionsTools, thereby registering jfrog_get_permission_target among all available tools.
    export const tools =[
      ...RepositoryTools,
      ...BuildsTools,
      ...RuntimeTools,
      ...AccessTools,
      ...AQLTools,
      ...CatalogTools,
      ...CurationTools,
      ...PermissionsTools,
      ...ArtifactSecurityTools,
    ];
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 states the tool retrieves detailed information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps, though it correctly indicates a non-destructive action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific permission target'). There is zero wasted language, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or output format. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what 'detailed information' entails, but it meets the bare minimum for a simple read operation.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'name' documented as 'The name of the permission target to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format constraints or examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 the verb 'get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific permission target', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'jfrog_list_permission_targets' by specifying retrieval of detailed info for a single target rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'get' tools (e.g., 'jfrog_get_permission_resource'), leaving some sibling differentiation incomplete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the permission target name), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'jfrog_get_permission_resource' or 'jfrog_list_permission_targets'. Usage is implied only by the action 'get detailed information', with no explicit context or alternatives stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jfrog/mcp-jfrog'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server