Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
writ-mcp

writ-mcp

Official
by withwrit
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

writ_principals

List a tenant's principals from the identity directory so agents can resolve identities before making policy-checked writes.

Instructions

List the tenant's principals (identity directory).

Tool call template

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": "writ_principals"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden; the verb 'List' does at least imply a read-only, side-effect-free operation scoped to a single tenant. It says nothing about required permissions, token/auth expectations, result size, or pagination behavior, which are the main open questions for a directory listing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The parenthetical definition earns its place by clarifying domain terminology.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and with zero parameters there is little else to specify. What is missing is routing context — how this directory differs from sibling listing tools — which matters given the crowded writ_* namespace.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies an unfiltered, tenant-wide listing rather than inviting arguments that do not exist.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('the tenant's principals'), and the parenthetical 'identity directory' clarifies what a principal is. It does not, however, differentiate this tool from adjacent directory-style siblings such as writ_keys, writ_verbs, or writ_manifests, which an agent could plausibly confuse it with.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the many other writ_* directory tools, and no prerequisites, exclusions, or follow-up suggestions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the one-line purpose statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools