list_assignable_rolesRetrieve assignable roles for a specific scope/tenant using its ID, filtered by the user's scopes. Use to see which roles can be granted when managing RBAC.
Lista los roles que el token puede asignar (según los scopes del usuario).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID del scope (tenant) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the list is filtered by token permissions (assignable roles based on user scopes), which is useful. However, it omits details like error handling for invalid scope IDs, pagination, or whether an empty list results from insufficient permissions.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core behavior. No redundant or vague wording is present.
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 with one parameter and no output schema, but the description does not specify what the returned list contains (e.g., role objects, IDs, or just names). It also lacks information about error scenarios or behavior when the token lacks access to the given scope. These omissions matter because there is no output schema to clarify the return structure.
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% for the single 'id' parameter, which already has a clear description ('ID del scope (tenant)'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool lists roles the token can assign, filtered by user scopes. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling 'list_roles' which likely lists all roles. The verb 'lista' and resource 'roles asignables' are precise.
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 implies usage when you need assignable roles based on token scopes, but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to alternatives like list_roles. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.