List users with direct Azure RBAC role assignments to identify permissions granted outside group membership, enabling clear security audits.
Lista usuários com role assignments diretos no Azure RBAC.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| disabled_only | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds the scoping detail of 'direct role assignments' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, default limits, or how disabled_only interacts with results. This is acceptable given the annotations, but not particularly informative.
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 no filler and the core purpose is front-loaded. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to missing parameter and usage context.
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 parameter descriptions, no output schema, and many similar sibling tools, the description is not complete enough for reliable tool selection. The meaning of disabled_only and the behavior of limit are left to inference, and no guidance helps distinguish this from the many related identity-listing tools.
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 description does not mention limit or disabled_only at all. The parameter names give some basic hints, but the description adds no meaning beyond what the schema types and defaults already show.
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 the action ('Lista') and the resource ('usuários com role assignments diretos no Azure RBAC'), making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling list_azure_role_assignments because it returns users rather than assignments, but it does not explicitly contrast with similar user-listing siblings such as list_disabled_users_with_active_roles.
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 description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It never mentions related tools like list_azure_role_assignments or get_user_effective_azure_access, nor does it state any exclusions or conditions that would help an agent choose between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.