Assess a workload's ServiceAccount RBAC and get an over-privilege verdict to identify excessive permissions.
Effective RBAC of the workload's ServiceAccount, with an over-privilege verdict.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | Workload name as you would say it: a Deployment, StatefulSet, DaemonSet, Service, or Pod name | |
| namespace | No | Kubernetes namespace (required: no default configured; see list_namespaces) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required to invoke it, how the effective RBAC is computed (e.g., aggregating roles and bindings), or what the 'over-privilege verdict' format looks like. This is a significant gap for a security-related tool.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core purpose without any fluff. Every word earns its place, and the most critical information (the tool's function and outcome) appears immediately. No redundant details or irrelevant caveats are present.
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?
The tool is a security analysis function with no output schema and no annotations. The description provides only a minimal statement of purpose, lacking essential context such as the expected output structure, any prerequisites (e.g., namespace), how the verdict is derived, or what constitutes 'effective' RBAC. Given the complexity of RBAC analysis, this is inadequate for an agent to fully understand what it will receive or how to interpret the result.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'service' and 'namespace' already well-documented. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It neither enhances nor detracts from the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('get'), a precise resource ('effective RBAC of the workload's ServiceAccount'), and an additional outcome ('over-privilege verdict'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_network_policies or get_secret_usage, none of which compute RBAC or provide a privilege verdict.
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?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool: to obtain effective RBAC and an over-privilege assessment for a workload's service account. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but given the unique nature of RBAC analysis among siblings, the context is sufficient for an agent to select it without confusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.