Audit an identity's privilege changes over time by providing a UPN, name, or objectId to retrieve a timeline of role and permission assignments.
Retorna timeline de privilégios para uma identidade específica (UPN, nome ou objectId).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| identity_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 communicate that this is read-only, idempotent, and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a timeline and which identifier formats are accepted, but it does not disclose how days/limit affect results, what the timeline contains, or whether direct/inherited privileges are included.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The essential verb, object, scope, and identifier formats are all present, and every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool.
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 description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool with identity_identifier, and the annotations reduce the need for safety disclaimers. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify the shape of the returned timeline or how it differs from the closely related privilege-timeline siblings, leaving meaningful gaps.
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%, but the tool description compensates for identity_identifier by specifying UPN, name, or objectId as valid formats. The days and limit parameters are left only with their titles and defaults, so their semantics are inferred rather than documented. This is partial compensation for the low coverage.
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 a clear object ('timeline de privilégios') with an explicit scope ('para uma identidade específica'). The parenthetical listing UPN, nome, or objectId makes the target unambiguous and helps distinguish this from sibling timeline tools that operate broadly or summarize/export data.
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 phrase 'para uma identidade específica' implies this is the appropriate choice when the agent has a single identity in mind, and that it is not an aggregate, summarize, or export tool. However, it never explicitly names an alternative or states when to prefer another sibling such as list_privilege_timeline_events or summarize_privilege_timeline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.