ado-mcp

ado_get_acls

Read-only

Retrieve access control lists for a security namespace, optionally filtered by a specific security token.

Instructions

Get access control lists for a security namespace, optionally scoped to a token.

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": {
      "namespaceId": "<namespaceId>"
    },
    "name": "ado_get_acls"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`token`	No	Security token to scope the ACLs
`namespaceId`	Yes	Security namespace GUID (from ado_list_security_namespaces)
`includeExtendedInfo`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to restate read-only behavior. It adds context about optional token scoping, but does not disclose other traits like return format or pagination. With annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the purpose. Every word is necessary; no fluff or redundancy.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and annotations provide readOnlyHint. The description covers the basic purpose but does not describe the return structure of ACLs, which is important for an agent. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 67% (token and namespaceId have descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning for these parameters beyond the schema. The includeExtendedInfo parameter lacks a schema description and the tool description does not explain it, leaving a gap.

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?

The description explicitly states it gets ACLs for a security namespace, optionally scoped to a token. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and differentiates it from sibling tools like ado_list_security_namespaces, which list namespaces but not ACLs.

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?

The description implies usage (requires namespaceId, optional token) but does not explicitly mention when to use vs alternatives or note prerequisites like obtaining namespaceId from ado_list_security_namespaces. However, no alternative ACL tool exists, so the lack of explicit guidance is less critical.

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

Deploy Server