SassyMCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sassy_permission

Idempotent

Inspect and modify safety controls for shell and file tools: view the active permission mode, switch between strict, confirm, sandbox, or bypass, and manage sandbox roots or deny rules.

Instructions

Read-only by default, mutating on change actions. Front door to the four-mode safety system gating shell and file tools. action="status" (default) reports the effective mode, derivation, sandbox roots, and active rules. set_mode sets permission.mode to strict (block destructive patterns), confirm (return a confirm token), sandbox (relaxed inside sandbox roots, anything outside is refused), or bypass (allow all except protected paths); mode="" clears the override so it derives from the legacy interceptor.destructiveAction setting. Switching to bypass requires confirm='YES' (exact, case-sensitive); the privilege mutations add_root (widens the sandbox jail), add_rule, and clear_rules also require confirm='YES', while remove_root (shrinks the jail) needs no confirmation. add_rule appends a JSON rule like {"action":"deny","tool":"sassy_shell","command":"rm"} (first match wins, before the mode default); clear_rules empties the list. Invalid modes and rules are rejected. Use to inspect or change safety gating; pair with sassy_shell_confirm in confirm mode.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`mode`	No
`path`	No
`rule`	No
`action`	No	status
`confirm`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.16.0Sep 22, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / confirm
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Confirm",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: 'Read-only by default, mutating on change actions' clarifies the readOnlyHint=false nuance; it discloses that switching to bypass requires exact case-sensitive confirm='YES', that add_root/add_rule/clear_rules also require confirmation while remove_root does not, that invalid modes/rules are rejected, and that mode='' derives from a legacy setting. This far exceeds the annotation baseline and contains no contradiction.

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 long but dense and front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into mode details and confirm requirements. For a tool with 4 modes, a rule system, and confirmation gates, the length is justified — nearly every clause carries new information. It could be slightly tightened but is well structured.

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?

Very complete for a complex safety-governance tool: covers all modes, confirmation requirements, rule precedence (first match wins), invalid input rejection, and legacy derivation. An output schema exists so return values need not be described. The only notable gap is the path parameter's role being implicit rather than explicit.

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?

At 0% schema coverage the description must compensate, and it does for most parameters: action='status' default, mode values (strict/confirm/sandbox/bypass, '' clears override), confirm='YES' requirement, and the rule JSON syntax for add_rule. However, the path parameter is only implied through the add_root/remove_root actions and is never explicitly mapped, leaving a small semantic 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?

States a specific verb+resource: the tool is the 'front door to the four-mode safety system gating shell and file tools.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like sassy_shell and sassy_shell_confirm by positioning itself as the permission/governance layer, and it names the pairing with sassy_shell_confirm. An agent can immediately tell what this tool is for.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use to inspect or change safety gating' and pairs with sassy_shell_confirm in confirm mode. It explains when each mode (strict/confirm/sandbox/bypass) is appropriate via their semantics. However, it does not state explicit exclusions or name alternative tools to prefer in other cases, so there's a small gap in 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.

Deploy Server