Audit direct Azure RBAC role assignments at subscription scope, including privileged roles, to review who holds standing access and identify excess permissions.
Resumo de role assignments diretos em escopo de subscription (inclui privilegiados).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
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 that privileged assignments are included, which is useful scope context, but it does not describe return format, pagination, or any other behavioral trait 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 a single efficient sentence that front-loads the resource and scope. It contains no wasted words, though its brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions rather than being an issue of structure itself.
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 summary tool with no output schema, the description should explain what the summary contains or how the limit parameter affects results. It only states the scope and inclusion of privileged assignments, leaving the agent without enough information to interpret or control the call fully.
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 sole parameter ('limit', default 20) is not mentioned in the description at all. The description does nothing to compensate for the missing parameter documentation.
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 scope ('role assignments diretos em escopo de subscription') and a qualifier ('inclui privilegiados'), making clear it is a subscription-level summary that includes privileged assignments. It does not name or contrast against siblings like list_azure_role_assignments or get_identity_access_summary, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_azure_role_assignments, list_privileged_azure_role_assignments, or get_identity_access_summary. Usage is only implied by the scope, with no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.