PocketBase MCP Server

pb_admin_impersonate_user

Enable admins to impersonate any user by specifying the user ID and optional token duration for troubleshooting or management purposes within PocketBase MCP Server.

Instructions

Impersonate a user (admin only)

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": {
      "recordId": "<recordId>"
    },
    "name": "pb_admin_impersonate_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`duration`	No	Token duration in seconds (optional)
`recordId`	Yes	User ID to impersonate

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2025

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'admin only' which hints at permissions, but doesn't disclose what impersonation entails (e.g., temporary token generation, session switching, security implications), rate limits, or what the tool returns. For a sensitive admin operation, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Impersonate a user') and includes a critical constraint ('admin only').

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a sensitive admin tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what impersonation does, what the output is (e.g., a token or session), security considerations, or how it differs from login tools. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond the schema (e.g., how 'duration' affects token validity or what 'recordId' represents). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the verb ('Impersonate') and resource ('a user'), and specifies it's for admin use only. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like pb_admin_login or pb_auth_login, which also involve user authentication/access.

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?

The description mentions 'admin only' which provides some context about permissions, but doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like pb_admin_login or pb_auth_login, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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