Generate a timeline report highlighting top privilege grants and revokes by identity, role, and scope over a specified period to audit Azure RBAC changes.
Gera relatório de timeline com top grants/revokes por identidade, role e escopo.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | ||
| days | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the core safety profile is clear. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the report content (e.g., no output format, pagination, or limits). With annotations covering safety, the description's lack of extra behavioral detail is acceptable but not additive.
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 concise sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource. However, it is slightly too terse, sacrificing semantic detail for brevity.
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?
With no output schema, 0% paramerner description coverage, and a large set of sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify expected return values, paramether meanings, or how this report differs from similar timeline tools, leaving gaps an agent must discover at invocation time.
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 0%, and the description does not explicitly explain the 'top' or 'days' parameters. The phrase 'top grants/revokes' hints at the 'top' parameter and 'timeline' hints at 'days', but these connections are implicit and insufficient for an agent to know how the parameters control the report.
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 states a specific verb ('Gera'), a resource ('relatório de timeline'), and the report's focus ('top grants/revokes por identidade, role e escopo'). This clearly identifies what the tool does, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling timeline tools such as summarize_privilege_timeline or list_privilege_timeline_events.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many timeline-related siblings. It does not mention preferred scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.