Audit Azure RBAC by listing privileged role assignments—Owner, User Access Administrator, Contributor—to identify overly permissive access and security risks.
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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the description only needs to add context. It adds meaningful behavioral scope by specifying exactly which Azure RBAC roles are considered privileged, helping the agent understand the filter. It stops short of describing pagination or output format, but the safety profile is already covered by annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the core purpose and the exact role filter without wasted words. It earns its place by adding the privileged-role definition rather than repeating the tool name or generic list behavior.
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 with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient: it names what is returned conceptually, the scope, and the roles included. It could be more complete by noting the default limit or noting what the response list contains, but the simplicity of the tool makes the absence non-critical.
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 schema has a single 'limit' parameter with a default of 50 and 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention the limit parameter at all, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema. However, the parameter is optional, self-explanatory, and has a sensible default, which mitigates the 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?
The description states a specific verb ('Lista'), a clear resource ('role assignments privilegiados em Azure RBAC'), and explicitly enumerates the privileged roles included: Owner, User Access Administrator, Contributor. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_azure_role_assignments and 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?
The intended context is implied by the word 'privileged' and the listed roles, but the description does not explicitly say when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as list_azure_role_assignments or list_orphan_azure_role_assignments. There is no direct comparison or exclusion guidance, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.