Retrieve the list of commands and system privileges you are allowed to execute on this Linux host, as defined in mcp-sudo.yaml.
Returns your authorized tools and privileges from mcp-sudo.yaml.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| output_format | No | Desired output format (e.g. json, yaml, table, wide). Defaults to text |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it reads from a YAML file and returns privileges, implying a read-only operation, but it does not mention error behavior, whether authentication is required, or what happens if the file is absent. The description is minimally transparent for a simple read operation.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the key action and resource, with no filler. It earns its place entirely and is optimally concise.
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?
For a tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it returns and where it reads from. It lacks details like the default output format or typical use cases, but these are minor given the tool's simplicity. Overall it is adequately complete.
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% – the output_format parameter is fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 tool's purpose: it returns authorized tools and privileges from mcp-sudo.yaml. The verb 'Returns' and the specific resource make the function unambiguous, and the source file adds precision. It is distinct from all sibling tools which cover files, disks, network, etc.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the domain is unique among siblings (auth vs. system/file/network operations), so usage is implied. However, there is no mention of when it would be inappropriate or any prerequisites, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.