Map an agent to its owners, identity, blueprint, Graph permissions, and Azure RBAC in one call. Use it to audit agent access paths for security reviews.
Resolve Agent → Owners → Identity → Blueprint → Graph Permissions → Azure RBAC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_identifier | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the schema: no information on what each arrow step returns, whether it's a graph traversal, potential performance costs, or required permissions. For a composite resolution tool with annotations, the description should add context about the multi-hop nature but does not.
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 extremely short—a single arrow chain. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words, but the cryptic notation may sacrifice clarity for brevity. Still, it earns credit for efficiency.
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 tool that evidently resolves a multi-step ownership and permission path, the description is completely inadequate. It omits parameter details, expected outputs, usage context, and does not account for the lack of an output schema. An agent would not know how to invoke it correctly or interpret results.
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% for the single required parameter 'agent_identifier'. The description does not explain what format or type of identifier is expected (e.g., object ID, name), leaving a critical gap. With low schema coverage, the description must compensate, and it fails to do so.
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 is an arrow chain: 'Resolve Agent → Owners → Identity → Blueprint → Graph Permissions → Azure RBAC.' This does specify a verb (Resolve) and resource (Agent relationships/ownership/permissions), but the notation is cryptic and doesn't clearly distinguish from siblings like get_agents_by_owner or graph_permissions. An agent must guess that this is a composite traversal tool.
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?
No indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_agents_by_owner, graph_permissions, or graph_role_assignments. No context, no exclusions, no prerequisites. The description provides zero usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.