List role grants (authorizations) for a specific user, showing which project roles they have. Optionally filter by project ID.
List role grants (authorizations) for a specific user, showing which project roles they have been assigned.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| userId | Yes | The user ID to list grants for | |
| projectId | No | Filter by project ID (uses default project if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds semantic framing (grants = assigned project roles) but nothing about pagination, result size, or ordering for a list endpoint, which is a real gap even at the lower annotated bar.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, and the defining scope ('for a specific user') comes early. It is appropriately sized, though it could have traded a few words for actual usage guidance.
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?
For a two-param, fully documented, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what is returned. It is adequate but thin: no indication of result shape, volume, or how to interpret multiple grants, leaving the agent to discover behavior at call time.
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 description coverage is 100%, including the 'uses default project if omitted' nuance, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description only restates that grants belong to a specific user and adds no syntax, format, or filter semantics beyond that baseline.
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?
Uses a specific verb+resource ("List role grants (authorizations)") and scopes it to a user, with a clarifying parenthetical that distinguishes it from the project-scoped sibling zitadel_list_project_roles. It stops short of naming the alternatives (list_project_roles, list_users) that an agent might confuse it with.
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?
Usage is only implied: "for a specific user" suggests it answers 'what can this user access?', and the schema's projectId hints at project filtering. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to siblings, so the agent must infer the boundary against list_project_roles and create_user_grant itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.