Get a complete list of all roles configured in your Baasix backend for managing user permissions and access control.
List all available roles
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "baasix_list_roles"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'List' clearly marks this as a read-only retrieval operation, and 'all available' signals no filtering. However, it does not mention return format, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior; for a zero-parameter list tool these are minor but present gaps.
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. 'List all available roles' says exactly what the tool does and nothing more, making it an appropriately concise definition.
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 zero-parameter list tool with no nested objects and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. The verb 'List' and the phrase 'all available roles' sufficiently frame the call. The only minor omission is the exact shape of the returned role objects, but that is largely implicit for a list operation.
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 and the input schema shows an empty properties object with 100% coverage, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to add. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and the description meets 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?
States the exact operation and resource: 'List all available roles.' The resource 'roles' is distinct from all sibling tools, so an agent can differentiate it from list_permissions, list_schemas, and other listing tools without opening schemas.
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?
The description provides clear context: this is the tool to call when a complete listing of all available roles is needed. There are no role-specific sibling tools to contrast against, so explicit exclusions are unnecessary. It stops short of a full 5 because it doesn't explicitly mention any related alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.