argocd_can_iCheck whether the current Argo CD account can perform an RBAC action on a resource or subresource and return if it is allowed.
Check whether the current account may perform resource/action on a subresource.
Returns {allowed: bool, ...}; the API answers the string yes/no.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | Yes | RBAC action | |
| resource | Yes | RBAC resource | |
| subresource | No | Sub-resource, e.g. */* or proj/app | */* |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds useful context: the API returns a string yes/no and the tool normalizes to {allowed: bool, ...}. The ellipsis hints at extra fields but doesn't say what. Reasonable value added atop annotations.
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 tight sentences, no waste. Front-loads the purpose then the return shape. Slightly under-specified rather than verbose, which is the right trade-off.
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?
No output schema, so the description should fully explain return values; it gives {allowed: bool, ...} which is partial. For a read-only permission check this is mostly adequate, but the vagueness of the extra return fields leaves a 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and both resource/action have enums, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions subresource and resource/action but adds no syntax details beyond the schema (e.g., what */* vs proj/app means is only in the schema description). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (check) and resource (whether account may perform resource/action on subresource). Clearly an RBAC permission-check tool, distinguishable from the siblings which mostly list/get actual resources. No explicit sibling differentiation, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 guidance on when to use this versus, say, argocd_get_userinfo or the actual resource tools. No exclusions, no mention of whether it reflects live RBAC, policy caching, or project-scoped permissions. An agent must infer usage entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.