@yawlabs/tailscale-mcp 0.19.0 → 0.19.1

package/dist/index.js

@@ -31481,12 +31481,17 @@ function filterTools(groups, options) {
 // src/tools/acl.ts
 var DEFAULT_PRINCIPAL_CAP = 25;
 var DIFF_TIME_BUDGET_MS = 6e4;
-function accessSet(matches) {
+function accessSet(matches, postureDefs, definitionsAvailable) {
   const out = /* @__PURE__ */ new Set();
   for (const match of matches) {
     const via = [...match.via ?? []].sort();
     const postures = [...match.postures ?? []].sort();
-    const qualifier = `${via.length > 0 ? ` via ${via.join(",")}` : ""}${postures.length > 0 ? ` posture ${postures.join(",")}` : ""}`;
+    const posturePart = postures.length > 0 ? ` posture ${postures.map((name) => {
+      if (!definitionsAvailable) return name;
+      const rules = [...postureDefs?.[name] ?? []].sort();
+      return rules.length > 0 ? `${name}(${rules.join(";")})` : name;
+    }).join(",")}` : "";
+    const qualifier = `${via.length > 0 ? ` via ${via.join(",")}` : ""}${posturePart}`;
     for (const port of match.ports ?? []) out.add(`${port}${qualifier}`);
   }
   return out;
@@ -31517,7 +31522,13 @@ async function previewAccess(policy, principal) {
       status: res.status
     };
   }
-  return { ok: true, access: accessSet(parsed.matches) };
+  return {
+    ok: true,
+    access: accessSet(parsed.matches, parsed.postures, false),
+    hasPostureDefs: !!parsed.postures,
+    matches: parsed.matches,
+    postureDefs: parsed.postures
+  };
 }
 var ETAG_FOOTER_MARKER = "// ETag: ";
 function stripEtagFooter(body) {
@@ -31654,7 +31665,7 @@ var aclTools = [
   },
   {
     name: "tailscale_diff_acl_access",
-    description: "Answer 'who loses access?' before applying an ACL change. Compares the CURRENT policy against a proposed one and reports, per user, which destinations they gain and lose. Run this before tailscale_update_acl -- validate_acl only checks syntax and the policy's own tests block, so a policy with no tests validates clean while revoking everyone. LIMITS, all reported in the response rather than left to be discovered. It compares USER principals only, so a revocation that runs through a tag or group can show a clean diff; it does not detect a change to a posture DEFINITION, because the comparison keys on posture names; and a narrowed port list shows as a paired loss and gain of the whole entry rather than a clean loss. An empty result is never proof a change is safe. It costs two preview requests per user, so it checks the first 25 by default and stops after 60 seconds regardless; either way it sets `truncated`, reports how many were skipped, and says which limit stopped it. Users whose preview fails are listed in `failed` and excluded from the compared count -- a failure is never reported as lost access, and if nothing could be compared the call fails rather than returning an empty diff.",
+    description: "Answer 'who loses access?' before applying an ACL change. Compares the CURRENT policy against a proposed one and reports, per user, which destinations they gain and lose. Run this before tailscale_update_acl -- validate_acl only checks syntax and the policy's own tests block, so a policy with no tests validates clean while revoking everyone. LIMITS, all reported in the response rather than left to be discovered. It compares USER principals only, so a revocation that runs through a tag or group can show a clean diff, and an empty result is never proof a change is safe. Posture DEFINITION changes ARE detected: posture names are resolved to their rules, so tightening `posture:corp` shows as a change -- except when a preview omits the definitions map, where it falls back to comparing names. It costs two preview requests per user, so it checks the first 25 by default and stops after 60 seconds regardless; either way it sets `truncated`, reports how many were skipped, and says which limit stopped it. Users whose preview fails are listed in `failed` and excluded from the compared count -- a failure is never reported as lost access, and if nothing could be compared the call fails rather than returning an empty diff.",
     annotations: {
       title: "Diff ACL access",
       readOnlyHint: true,
@@ -31665,7 +31676,7 @@ var aclTools = [
     inputSchema: external_exports.object({
       policy: external_exports.string().describe("The proposed ACL policy text to compare against the current live policy"),
       principals: external_exports.array(external_exports.string().trim().min(1)).optional().describe(
-        "User emails to check. Omit to enumerate the tailnet's users automatically. Pass an explicit list to bound the request count, or to check specific users beyond the cap."
+        "Principals to check, as they appear in `loginName` from tailscale_list_users. That is often an email, but on a GitHub or SSO tailnet it is not (e.g. 'alice@github') -- pass the loginName verbatim rather than an address you assume. Omit to enumerate the tailnet's users automatically. Pass an explicit list to bound the request count, or to check specific users beyond the cap."
       ),
       maxPrincipals: external_exports.number().int().positive().optional().describe(
         `Maximum users to check (default ${DEFAULT_PRINCIPAL_CAP}). Each costs two preview requests. Raising this on a large tailnet can be slow and may hit rate limits.`
@@ -31742,8 +31753,11 @@ var aclTools = [
           }
           continue;
         }
-        const lost = [...before.access].filter((a) => !after.access.has(a)).sort();
-        const gained = [...after.access].filter((a) => !before.access.has(a)).sort();
+        const definitionsAvailable = before.hasPostureDefs && after.hasPostureDefs;
+        const beforeAccess = accessSet(before.matches, before.postureDefs, definitionsAvailable);
+        const afterAccess = accessSet(after.matches, after.postureDefs, definitionsAvailable);
+        const lost = [...beforeAccess].filter((a) => !afterAccess.has(a)).sort();
+        const gained = [...afterAccess].filter((a) => !beforeAccess.has(a)).sort();
         if (lost.length === 0 && gained.length === 0) unchanged.push(principal);
         else changed.push({ principal, lost, gained });
       }
@@ -31792,9 +31806,8 @@ var aclTools = [
           // can come back empty while real access changed.
           scope: [
             "User principals only.",
-            "Not compared: access granted via tags or groups;",
-            "changes to a posture DEFINITION (the diff keys on posture names, so redefining `posture:corp` more strictly leaves every key identical);",
-            "and a destination whose port list is narrowed appears as a paired loss and gain of the whole entry (`tag:prod:22,80` -> `tag:prod:22`) rather than a clean loss, so `gained` is not a literal list of newly-reachable destinations.",
+            "Not compared: access granted via tags or groups.",
+            "Posture definition changes ARE compared -- names are resolved to their rules -- unless a preview omitted the definitions map, in which case names alone are compared and a redefinition would not show.",
             "An empty diff is not proof the change is safe."
           ].join(" "),
           changed,
@@ -34538,7 +34551,7 @@ function buildMetaTools(state) {
 }
 
 // src/index.ts
-var version2 = true ? "0.19.0" : resolveVersionFallback();
+var version2 = true ? "0.19.1" : resolveVersionFallback();
 var subcommand = process.argv[2];
 var cliSubcommandHandled = false;
 if (subcommand === "deploy-acl" || subcommand === "validate-acl") {

package/package.json

@@ -1,6 +1,6 @@
 {
   "name": "@yawlabs/tailscale-mcp",
-  "version": "0.19.0",
+  "version": "0.19.1",
   "mcpName": "io.github.YawLabs/tailscale-mcp",
   "description": "Tailscale MCP server for managing your tailnet from AI assistants",
   "license": "MIT",