Lists the permission scopes a user currently holds, grouped by category, to inspect what permissions a token can be granted.
List all permission scopes available to the current user, grouped by category. Only scopes the user already holds are returned — useful for inspecting what permissions a token can be granted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.17Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that by noting that only scopes the user already holds are returned and that results are grouped by category.
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 two tight sentences with the core resource and filtering behavior front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler text.
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?
With no parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned, how it is grouped, and that results are limited to held scopes. The main remaining gap is explicit differentiation from the similarly named OAuth client scopes tool.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The empty schema and description are consistent, and the baseline for a no-parameter tool 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?
The description gives a specific verb and resource: list permission scopes for the current user, grouped by category. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similar sibling oauth2_clients_scopes or api_keys_list.
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?
It provides a clear usage context: inspecting what permissions a token can be granted. It does not state when to prefer it over sibling tools such as oauth2_clients_scopes, so it falls short of full alternative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.