Skip to main content
Glama
DynamicEndpoints

BOD-25-01-CSA-Microsoft-Policy-MCP

block_high_risk_signins

Prevent unauthorized access by blocking sign-ins flagged as high risk. This tool enforces security policies to protect Microsoft 365 cloud services from potential threats.

Instructions

Block sign-ins detected as high risk (MS.AAD.2.3v1)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the tool logic: creates a Conditional Access Policy to block high-risk sign-ins using Microsoft Graph API.
    private async blockHighRiskSignins() {
      try {
        // Configure sign-in risk policy using Microsoft Graph API
        await this.graphClient
          .api('/policies/conditionalAccessPolicies')
          .post({
            displayName: 'Block High Risk Sign-ins',
            state: 'enabled',
            conditions: {
              signInRiskLevels: ['high'],
              applications: {
                includeApplications: ['all'],
              },
              users: {
                includeUsers: ['all'],
              },
            },
            grantControls: {
              operator: 'OR',
              builtInControls: ['block'],
            },
          });
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: 'High-risk sign-ins blocked successfully',
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error: unknown) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InternalError,
          `Failed to block high-risk sign-ins: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : 'Unknown error'}`
        );
      }
    }
  • Registration of the 'block_high_risk_signins' tool in the MCP server's tool list, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'block_high_risk_signins',
      description: 'Block sign-ins detected as high risk (MS.AAD.2.3v1)',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
    },
  • Input schema definition for the tool (empty object, no parameters required).
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {},
    },
  • Dispatch case in the CallToolRequest handler that routes to the blockHighRiskSignins method.
    case 'block_high_risk_signins':
      return await this.blockHighRiskSignins();
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a destructive action ('Block') but does not specify permissions required, whether the block is reversible, rate limits, or what happens to affected sign-ins. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity as a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately does not add parameter details, aligning with the schema's completeness, and thus meets the baseline for this dimension.

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 clearly states the action ('Block') and target ('sign-ins detected as high risk'), with a specific reference to a policy standard ('MS.AAD.2.3v1'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'block_high_risk_users', which might target users rather than sign-ins, leaving some ambiguity in sibling distinction.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'block_high_risk_users' or 'block_legacy_auth', nor does it mention prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions for its use. This lack of contextual direction limits effective tool selection.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/DynamicEndpoints/Automated-BOD-25-01-CISA-Microsoft-Policies-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server