permission_auditAudit Drupal user permissions and roles to identify access gaps and verify role-based assignments. Optionally filter by a specific role for targeted security reviews.
Audit user permissions and roles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| role | No |
| 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" implies a read-only inspection, but the description never confirms it is non-mutating, does not describe scope (all users vs. a filtered subset), and does not mention any side effects or requirements.
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 filler, so it is efficient and front-loaded. But the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline.
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 values need not be explained, but that is the only relief. For an audit tool with zero annotation coverage and an undocumented filter parameter, the description leaves too much for the agent to guess.
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 0% and the single optional `role` parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description mentions "roles" but never explains that the parameter filters the audit by role, nor does it describe the unfiltered default behavior.
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 ("user permissions and roles"), so the basic purpose is inferable. However, it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as get_user_roles, list_roles, or file_permissions_audit, and it's unclear whether the audit produces a report, findings, or just a listing.
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 when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites. An agent cannot tell whether this is preferable to get_user_roles or list_roles for a permissions check.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.