Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unraid MCP

Unraid MCP

by lemanjo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Unraid API apiKeyPossiblePermissions

unraid_v4371_query_api_key_possible_permissions
Read-onlyIdempotent

List explicit permissions accepted by API key operations to clarify allowed capabilities and avoid invalid key configurations.

Instructions

List explicit permissions accepted by API key operations.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "unraid_v4371_query_api_key_possible_permissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the domain context that the result is a list of explicit permissions, but does not disclose return format or further behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; it states the exact action and target efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool, the description is adequate: it communicates the output concept and the scope. It does not describe return formatting, but no output schema exists and the tool is simple enough that this is not a major gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

There are no parameters, so the description needs to add no parameter-level meaning; the baseline with 0 parameters is 4.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Clear verb+resource: lists explicit permissions accepted by API key operations. It is distinct from sibling tools like query_api_key_possible_roles, though it does not explicitly reference alternatives.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The purpose implies when to use it—when you need the permission values an API key operation accepts—but it gives no explicit guidance about choosing it over related siblings such as query_permissions_for_roles or query_available_auth_actions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools