Audit identity access by summarizing total users, enabled/disabled accounts, direct permissions, and disabled users with active roles.
Retorna resumo de identidade e RBAC:
total de usuários
usuários habilitados/desabilitados
usuários com permissões diretas
usuários desabilitados com roles ativas
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so safety is established. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by enumerating the exact categories returned (user totals, enabled/disabled, direct permissions, disabled users with active roles), which goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, then uses a short bullet list for the returned categories. Every line adds information and there is no filler or repetition.
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?
The tool is simple (no parameters, no output schema), and the description explains what the caller will receive. It is complete enough for an agent to understand the result shape, though it does not explicitly state tenant-wide scope or mention any other RBAC metrics that might be omitted.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the description cannot add parameter detail. The input schema is trivially complete at 100% coverage, and no parameter semantics are needed. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retorna') and names the resource ('resumo de identidade e RBAC'), followed by concrete bullet items. It is clearly a summary tool, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools or explain how it differs from list-oriented tools like list_users or get_pim_state_summary.
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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pim_state_summary, get_environment_summary, or list_users_with_direct_permissions. The context implies it is a high-level summary, but the description does not provide selection criteria, exclusions, or references to other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.