List privileged role assignments categorized by state (Active, Eligible, Permanent) to audit PIM access in Microsoft Entra ID.
Lista atribuições privilegiadas classificadas por estado: Active, Eligible e Permanent.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| include_permanent | 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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, and the description is consistent with them. The phrase 'classified by state' adds some output-organization context, but the description does not disclose anything beyond that, such as result volume or filtering.
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 focused sentence, with the main action and classification front-loaded and no redundant content.
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?
Although the annotations cover safety, there is no output schema and no parameter explanation, so an agent lacks crucial details for invoking this tool. It also does not help disambiguate among the many sibling list/get tools, leaving selection and parameter choices under-specified.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but does not. The only indirect clue is the mention of 'Permanent', which maps to include_permanent; the limit parameter and the precise effect of include_permanent are not explained.
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 ('Lista') and identifies the resource ('atribuições privilegedas') plus the classification states (Active, Eligible, Permanent). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from nearby sibling tools such as get_pim_state_summary or list_privilege_timeline_events.
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 guidance is given about when to choose this tool versus alternatives. It neither names sibling tools nor states conditions for use, so an agent must infer the use case from the name and one-line description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.