outline-rbac-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource: user administration (change role, list, invite, remove, suspend, activate), document operations (search, read, create, update, delete), account self-service (whoami, update_my_account), RBAC visualization (access_graph), and auditing (audit_log). No two tools appear to overlap in purpose.
Naming Consistency4/5
The majority of tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_users, create_doc, suspend_user). However, 'whoami' and 'access_graph' are noun-only exceptions, and 'search_docs' uses a plural noun while document tools like 'read_doc' and 'update_doc' use singular, introducing minor inconsistency.
Tool Count5/5
With 15 tools, the server is at the upper edge of the well-scoped range but each tool covers a distinct and necessary operation within the domains of document management, user administration, RBAC awareness, and auditing. No redundant or excessive tools are present, and the count feels proportionate to the server's stated purpose.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage: full CRUD for documents, full lifecycle for users (invite, suspend, activate, remove, change role), self-service account operations, RBAC introspection, and an audit trail. There are no obvious missing operations that would prevent an agent from accomplishing common tasks in this domain.
Average 3.6/5 across 15 of 15 tools scored. Lowest: 2.8/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 1 commit in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description includes a permission requirement ('requires: docs.create'), which is a useful behavioral constraint. However, it does not describe what happens on success (e.g., returned object), failure conditions, or any side effects. With no annotations, the agent has limited insight into the tool's runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded with the essential action. It does not waste words, though it sacrifices detail for brevity. The single sentence is meaningful and easy to parse.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter semantics, return value, or usage boundaries, leaving the agent without enough context to invoke it reliably.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides property names and types but no descriptions. The description does not explain any parameters. 'publish' is ambiguous, and 'collectionId' is only vaguely hinted by 'in a collection.' With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.
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 clearly states the action (create), the resource (document), and the location (in a collection). It distinguishes from sibling tools like update_doc, delete_doc, and read_doc by explicitly indicating a creation operation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_doc or read_doc. The description does not mention that this is for new documents only, nor does it reference any usage exclusions or prerequisites beyond a permission requirement.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only mentions the required scope; it does not state what happens with the query parameter, whether pagination is involved, what user fields are returned, or if suspended users are included. The behavior is largely opaque.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that is efficient and avoids waste. However, it is almost too brief, omitting information that would improve its value. Still, for what it conveys, it is well-structured and concise.
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?
Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the query parameter's effect, what data is returned, or any behavior beyond listing users. The absence of annotations and output schema increases the description's responsibility, which it fails to meet.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one optional 'query' parameter with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not mention this parameter at all, leaving its meaning completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 'List workspace users' clearly states the verb (list) and resource (workspace users), distinguishing it from sibling tools like change_user_role, invite_user, and remove_user which perform different actions. The purpose is unambiguous and directly communicates what the tool does.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about scenarios where listing users is appropriate. The only additional info is the required scope '[requires: users.list]', which is a prerequisite, not a usage guideline.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the required permission ('users.change_role') and implies a mutating action, which adds useful context. However, it omits consequences, reversibility, or whether there are restrictions on changing certain roles (e.g., demoting an admin).
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, focused sentence that front-loads the permission requirement and then states the action. Every word contributes to the tool's purpose, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It leaves the meaning of `id` unexplained and does not cover the implications of a role change or any edge cases. While simple, the lack of parameter and behavioral detail makes it incomplete for an agent to confidently invoke.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter semantics. The `role` parameter is self-explanatory via its enum, but `id` is ambiguous (it is not stated to be a user ID). The description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 uses the specific verb 'Change' with the resource 'another user's workspace role,' clearly distinguishing this tool from self-service updates (update_my_account) and other user management actions like suspend or remove. It clearly states the tool's function and scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when another user's workspace role needs to be changed, and the phrase 'another user's' contrasts with self-service tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like suspend_user or invite_user, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the permission note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 only mentions the required permission and the delete action, but omits critical details such as whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or has cascading effects. For a destructive operation, this is a significant transparency gap.
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, front-loaded sentence that includes the permission requirement and the action. It contains no wasted words and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
For a simple one-parameter delete tool, the description covers the core action and permission but does not disclose return values, error conditions, or irreversibility. This is minimally complete but could be enhanced to provide fuller context for an 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?
The schema provides only a generic 'id' with no description, and the tool description does not explicitly explain the parameter. However, the phrase 'Delete a document' makes it evident that 'id' refers to the document to be deleted, offering implicit meaning that compensates for the schema's lack of detail.
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 states 'Delete a document' with a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like read_doc, create_doc, and update_doc. There is no ambiguity about the operation performed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage by stating 'Delete a document' but does not explicitly discuss when to use this over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or side effects. The inclusion of the permission requirement provides some context, but no exclusions or alternative tool references are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the permission requirement ([requires: audit.read]), the read-only nature of the operation, and the response contents (tool calls, actors, success/denial). It does not mention behavior around the 'limit' parameter, but for a simple read tool this is reasonably complete.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and permission requirement. It is concise, with no wasted words, and effectively communicates the core purpose.
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 description clearly states the purpose and permission, but it lacks any mention of the only input parameter 'limit', which is a notable gap. With no output schema or annotations, the description provides a decent overview but is not fully complete for a tool with an input parameter.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'limit' with no description, and the description does not mention it at all. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining parameters, but it completely fails to do so, leaving the meaning and effect of 'limit' undocumented.
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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'workflow audit trail', further detailing its contents (every tool call, who made it, success/denial). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling user and doc management tools, which have different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for inspecting audit history, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor mention any exclusions. Since no sibling tool is audit-related, the usage is clear but only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses the permission requirement, which is useful, but it does not mention side effects such as sending an invite email, behavior for existing users, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, focused sentence that front-loads the permission requirement and clearly states the action. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition.
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?
For a 3-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action and permission. However, it lacks important context such as what happens after the invite is sent, whether the invitee must accept, or any preconditions beyond the permission. This leaves room for misinterpretation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains 'role' implicitly ('given role') but does not describe 'email' or 'name'. The enum for role is present in the schema, but the description adds no details about email format, name expectations, or how parameters relate to the invite process.
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 uses a specific verb ('invite') and resource ('user to the workspace'), and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like change_user_role, remove_user, or suspend_user. It states the primary action and the role parameter, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description includes a required permission context ([requires: users.invite]) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like change_user_role or inviting existing users. It implies a scenario but does not state exclusions or preferred use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the required permission ('requires: users.suspend'), the effect (blocks sign-in), and non-destructive nature (keeps data). However, it omits reversibility, impact on active sessions, or idempotency, so transparency is partial.
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 concise sentence, front-loading the permission requirement and providing essential information without waste.
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?
Given low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers core behavior and permission. However, it lacks explicit usage alternatives and parameter clarification, leaving some context gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one required parameter 'id' with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what 'id' refers to, though the tool name implies it is the user identifier. This fails to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation.
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 uses a specific verb ('Suspend') and resource ('a user'), and clarifies the outcome ('blocks sign-in, keeps their data'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like remove_user and activate_user.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for temporary access blocking while preserving data, but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or mention activate_user for reversal. The guidance is implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the required permission (`account.update_self`) and the self-scoping nature, but does not mention validation rules, side effects, or whether the update is partial or full. This is moderate transparency.
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?
One sentence with a leading permission tag, concise and front-loaded. Every element adds value without unnecessary verbosity.
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 is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema. The description covers the main purpose and permission, but lacks information on response behavior, error conditions, or when to choose alternatives. It is minimally complete but with gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'name and/or avatar URL', which paraphrases the schema properties but adds no additional semantics or constraints beyond what the property names already imply.
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 clearly states the tool updates the user's own profile, specifying the resource (your own profile) and the fields (name and/or avatar URL). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_doc or change_user_role.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for self-service profile updates and includes a permission requirement, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions. It is clear enough for the intended use but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral context. It discloses a permission requirement and restricts the search to 'documents you can access', which is useful access-control context. However, it does not describe return format, pagination, or whether the search covers document content vs. metadata, leaving behavioral details mostly implicit.
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 that front-loads the permission requirement and clearly states the tool's purpose. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
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 is simple with one parameter and no output schema or annotations. The description covers the core purpose and permission scope but omits information about the return structure, limit/offset behavior, or any required parameters besides 'query'. Given the minimal context, this is adequate but not 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?
The schema has only one required parameter, 'query', with no description (0% schema coverage). The tool description identifies a full-text search, which implies 'query' is the search term, but it does not explain query syntax, case sensitivity, or supported operators. Some meaning is added beyond the bare schema, but it is minimal.
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 uses a specific verb ('search') and resource ('documents'), clearly indicating this is a full-text search tool. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like read_doc by scoping to 'documents you can access' and emphasizing search across documents.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (when you need to find documents by content), and mentions a required permission ('docs.search'), but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like read_doc for known document IDs. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a permission requirement ('[requires: users.activate]') and implies a state change, but it does not explain preconditions (e.g., what if the user is not suspended), side effects, or error behavior. This is adequate but leaves some gaps typical for a simple mutation tool.
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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with the permission requirement and purpose. Every word earns its place, and there is no redundancy or unnecessary verbosity.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally complete: it states the purpose and permission. However, it lacks interaction context with siblings (e.g., that suspend_user is the reverse) and does not mention error conditions or what constitutes a successful activation. This is adequate but has clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% for the single 'id' parameter, and the description does not compensate by explaining what 'id' refers to. While it's inferable from the tool name that 'id' is a user ID, the description adds no explicit parameter semantics beyond the schema's bare type definition.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Re-activate') and resource ('a previously suspended user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like suspend_user and remove_user. The verb+resource structure is unambiguous.
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 phrase 'previously suspended user' clearly indicates when this tool is appropriate (for suspended users). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to infer usage. A minor gap is the lack of explicit 'when not to use' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors itself. It mentions the required permission `docs.read` and the read-only nature, but does not cover error handling or return format. The permission note adds some transparency.
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?
One sentence with the permission note in brackets, front-loaded and free of irrelevant information.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the action, resource, parameter, and a prerequisite. However, it does not explicitly state the return value, which is a minor gap for a read operation.
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?
The schema only defines `id` as a string. The description adds that the tool reads a document 'by ID', clarifying that the `id` parameter is the document identifier.
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 uses a specific verb 'Read' and resource 'document', and clarifies the lookup by ID. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_doc, update_doc, and delete_doc.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_docs. The description only states that it reads by ID, without explicit when-to-use or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a permission requirement ('[requires: users.remove]') and irreversibility ('permanently remove'). However, it does not describe side effects on the user's data, whether the action can be undone, or what the response looks like. This is minimal but meaningful disclosure.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the permission requirement and then the core action. It is concise, with no wasted words, and is well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.
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?
With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and permission. However, it lacks details on return values, error behavior, or consequences for the user's content, which are important for a destructive operation. Given the simplicity, it is sufficient but not 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?
The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with description 'User ID'. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Permanently remove a user from the workspace.' The verb 'remove' is specific and the resource 'user' is explicit. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like suspend_user or invite_user by emphasizing 'permanently' and workspace scope.
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 when permanent removal is intended, contrasting with suspension or role changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The word 'permanently' gives context that this is for deletion rather than temporary actions, providing clear context without formal exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement (docs.update) and scopes the update to title and/or text, which is useful. It does not mention return values, error behavior, or reversibility, but given the simple nature of the update, this is somewhat acceptable. It is more transparent than a bare 'Update document' but still leaves gaps.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the permission requirement, and every word adds value. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool is simple with only three parameters, and the description covers the core purpose and auth. There is no output schema, but for an update tool, the return format is not critical. The main gap is the ambiguity around whether both title and text are optional; the description's 'and/or' partially addresses this. Overall, it is reasonably complete for the tool's complexity.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that title and/or text can be updated, suggesting that at least one should be provided. However, it does not explain the 'id' parameter, and the schema itself requires only id, which could lead to confusion about whether a no-op update is allowed. The description adds some semantic value but not fully.
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 clearly states the tool updates a document's title and/or text, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like create_doc, delete_doc, read_doc, and search_docs by specifying exactly what is modified.
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 when to use this tool (when needing to update an existing document's title or text) and includes a permission requirement, which is helpful context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or situations where this tool should not be used, so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does 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 discloses a required permission ('account.view_self') and implies a non-destructive read operation via 'Render,' but it does not describe the output format, error behavior, or any other side effects.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the key permission requirement and immediately states the action. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy.
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?
Given the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers its purpose and permission requirement. It could be more explicit about the return type (e.g., image vs. data structure), but it is sufficiently complete for such a straightforward tool.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed. The schema already fully covers the parameter semantics (empty properties).
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 uses a specific verb ('Render') and resource ('role inheritance graph'), and further specifies 'where the current user sits in it,' which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like whoami or list_users. It clearly states what the tool does.
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 context is clear: use this tool when you need to render the role inheritance graph and see the current user's position. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the purpose strongly implies the usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the required permission (account.view_self) and describes the resolved-from-role-graph behavior, adding useful context beyond a simple 'whoami'. It does not explicitly state read-only/side-effect-free, but that is strongly implied.
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?
Single sentence with a permission prefix in brackets. Information is front-loaded and every word earn its place, no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters, no output schema, and the simple nature of a whoami tool, the description fully covers what it returns (user, role, effective capabilities) and the permission requirement. No gaps remain.
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?
Tool has zero parameters, so baseline is 4 per rubric. The description does not need to add parameter details.
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 clearly identifies the tool's function: showing the authenticated user's role and effective capabilities. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_users (all users) and access_graph (role graph) by focusing on the current user's self-view.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving current user details, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives such as list_users or access_graph. The permission note provides context but no exclusions or alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![outline-rbac-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pritesh-knowai/outline-rbac-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pritesh-knowai/outline-rbac-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![outline-rbac-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pritesh-knowai/outline-rbac-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pritesh-knowai/outline-rbac-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/pritesh-knowai/outline-rbac-mcp'

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