file_permissions_auditAudit file permissions to detect security issues in Drupal file paths. Specify a path to check access settings and identify vulnerabilities.
Audit file permissions for security issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | public:// |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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. 'Audit' weakly implies a read-only inspection, but it does not state whether anything is modified, what permissions are required, or what scope ('security issues' is undefined). Almost no behavioral context beyond the one-line purpose.
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 short sentence with no wasted words, appropriately front-loaded — but it is under-specified rather than concise, compressing away information the agent needs.
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?
An output schema exists so return formatting need not be described, but for a security-audit tool with a path parameter and no annotations, the definition omits scope, what is checked, and what the parameter's default means. There are clear gaps for an agent to call it confidently.
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?
One parameter ('path', default 'public://') with 0% schema description coverage. The description never mentions the path argument, its stream-wrapper syntax, or whether omitting it audits the whole site or only public files, leaving the parameter under-documented in both places.
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 verb ('Audit') and resource ('file permissions') plus a goal ('security issues'), which distinguishes it loosely from siblings like permission_audit (Drupal permissions) and security_scan (general). However, it never says what the audit actually inspects or reports, so the agent only knows the topic, not the operation's substance.
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 the many adjacent audit/scan siblings (permission_audit, security_scan, csp_audit, code_quality_report). Neither prerequisites nor exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.