Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Unraid MCP

Unraid MCP

by lemanjo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Unraid API getPermissionsForRoles

unraid_v4371_query_permissions_for_roles
Read-onlyIdempotent

Resolve permissions granted by a set of Unraid roles to understand their access rights.

Instructions

Resolve the permissions granted by a set of roles.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "roles": "<roles>"
    },
    "name": "unraid_v4371_query_permissions_for_roles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rolesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
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 and there is no contradiction. The description does not add behavioral detail beyond those annotations, such as return format or role-validation behavior, but it is consistent with them.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repeated title content. It is efficient, though slightly under-specified.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a one-parameter read-only query with strong annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. There is no output schema and the description does not clarify what the resolved permission output looks like, nor does it differentiate this from closely related role/permission tools.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to compensate for the undocumented roles parameter. It only restates 'a set of roles' and adds no meaning beyond the schema's array type and enum values, leaving the burden on the schema.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('resolve') and a clear resource ('permissions granted by a set of roles'), so an agent can tell this is a permission-lookup query. It does not explicitly contrast with closely related sibling tools such as query_preview_effective_permissions or query_api_key_possible_permissions, which keeps it from a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No usage guidance is provided. The description never states when to use this tool instead of query_preview_effective_permissions, query_api_key_possible_permissions, or query_available_auth_actions, leaving tool selection to inference.

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