List privileged role assignments by PIM state: Active, Eligible, or Permanent to audit standing and just-in-time access.
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read. The description adds the state-classification grouping, which is mild context, but says nothing about pagination, result size, or auth requirements.
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?
Two short lines that lead with the verb and resource, then enumerate the state categories. Nothing redundant, though the trailing colon fragment is slightly clipped.
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 list tool whose annotations already cover the safety profile, the description adequately conveys what is listed. However, with two undocumented parameters and no output schema, an agent still lacks pagination and filtering behavior needed to call it confidently.
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 hints at the 'Permanent' category, which loosely maps to include_permanent, but the limit parameter is entirely unexplained and no formats or defaults are clarified. Compensation is only partial.
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?
States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('atribuições privilegiadas') and adds the classification dimension (Active, Eligible, Permanent). It is clear what the tool returns, though it never distinguishes itself from the closely-related sibling get_pim_state_summary.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_pim_state_summary or pim_natural_language_query. No prerequisites, exclusions, or context are given, leaving usage entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.