Check effective permissions on a Windows service to see which accounts can access or modify it, aiding access audits and privilege troubleshooting.
Check effective permissions on a specific Windows service.
{"success": bool, "entries": list[dict], "count": int}
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service_name | Yes | Service name to check |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, yet it discloses nothing about required privileges (access checks on services typically need elevation), local vs remote targets, or what an 'effective permission' entry contains. The only behavioral detail is a return-format block, which duplicates the declared output schema rather than adding new context.
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 operative sentence is short and front-loaded with no filler. The appended Return Format block is redundant given an output schema exists, a small amount of wasted space, but the overall size is appropriate.
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?
Because an output schema exists, the description rightly omits return-value detail, but with zero annotations it should still convey the read-only nature and privilege requirements of an access-check tool. Adequate for a single-parameter read, but leaves real gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with a single required service_name parameter, so the schema already documents the input fully. The description's phrase 'specific Windows service' adds only marginal framing beyond 'Service name to check', so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb+resource: checking effective permissions on a named Windows service. This is clearly narrower than the sibling accesschk, though the description never explicitly says how it relates to or differs from that broader tool.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling accesschk tool that overlaps in scope. An agent must infer from the name alone when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.