Calculate a 0-100 risk score for privileged Entra ID or Azure RBAC roles to identify high-risk access and support remediation decisions.
Calcula score de risco (0-100) para uma role privilegiada de Entra ID ou Azure RBAC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | Yes | ||
| scope | No | / | |
| state | No | ||
| provider | Yes |
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, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds the 0-100 score range and specifies that the target is a privileged role in Entra ID or Azure RBAC, but it does not disclose behavior like input format expectations or output structure beyond the score range.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose and score range efficiently, though it sacrifices parameter guidance 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?
Given 4 parameters, zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is too minimal. An agent cannot reliably determine how to populate 'scope' and 'state', what 'provider' values are valid, or what the full response contains.
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%, so the description must compensate. It only hints that 'role' is a privileged role and that 'provider' relates to Entra ID or Azure RBAC; it provides no meaningful semantics for 'scope' or 'state', nor accepted values or formats for the required parameters.
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 ('Calcula') and a clear resource ('score de risco para role privilegiada de Entra ID ou Azure RBAC'), and it includes the output range 0-100. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is distinct enough among the listed siblings.
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 alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. With many assessment and scoring siblings, the agent is left to infer the appropriate selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.