Check whether a Polkit action ID is authorized by the system authority, allowing you to verify permissions before executing privileged operations.
Check authorization for a Polkit action ID against org.freedesktop.PolicyKit1.Authority.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| details | No | Optional details JSON string. | |
| action_id | Yes | Polkit action ID. | |
| allow_user_interaction | No | Allow interactive prompt. |
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 of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain the return value, whether a denial reason is included, whether allow_user_interaction can trigger a system prompt, or any side effects of checking authorization.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately identifies the action and the resource, making it easy to scan.
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?
The tool is simple, has full schema documentation, and a read-only 'check' purpose, so the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no behavioral notes, the agent is left without explicit information about the authorization result format or interactive-prompt behavior.
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%, so all three parameters already have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 states a specific operation ('Check authorization'), a specific resource (Polkit action ID), and the target interface (org.freedesktop.PolicyKit1.Authority). This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as polkit_pkexec, polkit_list_actions, or polkit_generate_policy.
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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like polkit_pkexec or polkit_list_actions. No preconditions, exclusions, or decision rules are provided; the only implied usage is the purpose stated in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.