Skip to main content
Glama
nikulk2992-jpg

prismhr-mcp

meta_grant_permissions

Grant, revoke, or replace scopes this server can use, with automatic prerequisite inclusion and consistency enforcement.

Instructions

Grant, revoke, or replace the set of scopes this server may use.

Prerequisite scopes are auto-included: granting 'employee:read' also grants 'client:read' because the search tool needs it. Revoking a prerequisite cascades — dependent scopes get dropped to stay consistent.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
grantedNoScopes to ADD to the current grant set. Use scope identifiers from meta_request_permissions (e.g. 'client:read').
revokedNoScopes to REMOVE from the current grant set.
replaceNoIf true, replace the entire granted set with `granted` (ignores `revoked`). Use for 'start fresh' flows.
accept_recommended_defaultsNoIf true, grant exactly the scopes flagged as recommended in the manifest (reads only). Combines with `granted` as union.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
grantedYes
granted_countYes
addedYes
removedYes
consent_fileYes
user_messageYes
Behavior4/5

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

In absence of annotations, description explains key side effects: auto-inclusion of prerequisites and cascading revocation. This goes beyond basic read/write characterization.

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?

Two sentences: first for overall purpose, second for key behavioral nuance. No unnecessary words, efficiently front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, description covers purpose, parameter hints, and critical side-effect behavior. Only minor gap: no mention of idempotency or error conditions.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds practical context: for 'granted' it references meta_request_permissions, for 'replace' it clarifies 'start fresh' flow.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Clear verb 'Grant, revoke, or replace' identifies the action, and 'set of scopes this server may use' specifies the resource. Distinguishes from sibling tools like meta_list_permissions and meta_request_permissions by focusing on modification.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Describes prerequisite auto-inclusion and cascading revocation, which guides when to use this tool. Could be improved by explicitly contrasting with sibling tools, but the behavioral rules are clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/nikulk2992-jpg/prismhr-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server