List available OAuth2 permission scopes grouped by category, returning only scopes the authenticated user holds.
List all available permission scopes that can be granted to OAuth2 applications, grouped by category. Only returns scopes the authenticated user holds.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing that results are permission-filtered to scopes the authenticated user holds, which materially affects what the agent will receive.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The output shape (grouped by category) and the filtering constraint are both front-loaded and each sentence earns its place.
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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response and does so at a high level (grouped by category, permission-filtered). It stops short of saying what a single scope entry looks like (identifier vs. label, whether descriptions are included), a minor remaining gap.
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 is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The description correctly does not invent parameter discussion.
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 and resource ('List all available permission scopes that can be granted to OAuth2 applications') and adds the grouping dimension. This is clearly separable from the OAuth2 client CRUD siblings, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the similarly-named api_keys_scopes sibling.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement. The purpose implies it is a reference lookup used before creating or updating an OAuth2 client, but the agent must infer that, and must infer when to use api_keys_scopes instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.