Find the users and groups entitled to access a desktop or application pool by providing its pool ID and type.
Get the users and groups entitled to access a specific pool.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pool_id | Yes | Pool ID to retrieve entitlements for | |
| pool_type | Yes | Type of pool |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what is returned but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation, mention authentication requirements, or explain any edge cases or side effects. The verb 'Get' implies read-only behavior, but the description relies on that inference instead of stating it.
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, clear, front-loaded sentence that communicates the essential purpose without excess words. Every part of the sentence contributes meaning.
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?
The tool is simple, has only two required parameters, and benefits from a full input schema and an output schema. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral detail, so while an agent can likely call the tool correctly, some context around its relationship to sibling tools and its read-only nature is missing.
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 100%, so the input schema fully documents pool_id and pool_type. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which keeps this at the baseline score of 3.
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 clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('users and groups entitled to access a specific pool'). It is more specific than the generic tool name and conveys that it targets one pool, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool list_pool_entitlements.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_pool_entitlements or set_pool_entitlements. The description implies the basic use case—retrieving entitlements for a specific pool—but provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.