Retrieve Azure RBAC role assignments for users, groups, service principals, and managed identities to audit access rights.
Lista role assignments Azure RBAC (User, Group, Service Principal e Managed Identity).
| 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?
The annotations already communicate that the operation is read-only, idempotent, and open-world, which covers the safety profile. The description adds the principal types in scope but does not disclose pagination behavior, listing scope, or response shape, so the added behavioral value is modest.
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 sentence with no filler. The core action and resource scope are front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 read-only listing tool with one optional parameter, the description is minimally viable: an agent can invoke it without arguments. However, without an output schema or any mention of result ordering, pagination, or scope, the context is not complete for an agent that needs to consume or filter 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?
The description says nothing about the only parameter, 'limit', and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap. The property title 'Limit' with a default of 50 provides minimal meaning, but the description itself adds no parameter-level semantics.
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 identifies a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('role assignments Azure RBAC') and enumerates the principal types covered (User, Group, Service Principal, Managed Identity). It is clear about what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like list_privileged_azure_role_assignments or list_orphan_azure_role_assignments.
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 usage guidance is provided about when to call this tool versus alternatives. The sibling set contains several similar listing tools, so the absence of routing or exclusion criteria leaves the agent to infer intent from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.