Audit Azure RBAC by listing privileged role assignments such as Owner, User Access Administrator, and Contributor to identify high-risk access in a tenant.
Lista role assignments privilegiados em Azure RBAC (Owner, User Access Administrator, Contributor).
| 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful domain context by defining exactly which roles count as 'privileged', but it says nothing about the default limit of 50 or the volume/scope of results returned, so it adds partial value beyond the structured fields.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, the scope, and the defining role list with zero filler. Nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry more of the return-value burden, yet it does not describe the shape of results (assignment objects, principals, scope) or the effect of the limit parameter. The role enumeration helps, but the definition remains only minimally adequate for a security-focused listing tool.
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 single 'limit' parameter carries only a default (50) with no explanation. The description does not mention the limit, its default, or what happens when it is omitted, so it fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 ('role assignments privilegiados em Azure RBAC') and enumerates the exact privileged roles (Owner, User Access Administrator, Contributor), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling list_azure_role_assignments that presumably returns all assignments. It is clear and precise, though it does not explicitly name the sibling it narrows from.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Given the dense sibling set (list_azure_role_assignments, list_orphan_azure_role_assignments, get_role_risk_score, list_pim_role_states), an agent gets no explicit signal about when this privileged-only view is preferred over the general role assignment listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.