Skip to main content
Glama
DynamicEndpoints

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

block_high_risk_users

Block users identified as high risk to prevent unauthorized access and protect Microsoft 365 cloud services from security threats.

Instructions

Block users detected as high risk (MS.AAD.2.1v1)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic of the 'block_high_risk_users' tool by patching the identitySecurityDefaultsEnforcementPolicy to enable blocking of high-risk users.
    private async blockHighRiskUsers() {
      try {
        // Configure risk detection policy using Microsoft Graph API
        await this.graphClient
          .api('/policies/identitySecurityDefaultsEnforcementPolicy')
          .patch({
            blockHighRiskUsers: true,
            riskLevelForBlocking: 'high',
          });
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: 'High-risk users blocked successfully',
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error: unknown) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InternalError,
          `Failed to block high-risk users: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : 'Unknown error'}`
        );
      }
    }
  • Registration of the 'block_high_risk_users' tool in the listTools handler, including name, description, and input schema (empty).
    {
      name: 'block_high_risk_users',
      description: 'Block users detected as high risk (MS.AAD.2.1v1)',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
    },
  • Input schema definition for the 'block_high_risk_users' tool (no parameters required).
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {},
    },
  • Dispatch case in the CallToolRequest handler that routes to the blockHighRiskUsers method.
    case 'block_high_risk_users':
      return await this.blockHighRiskUsers();
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, or any side effects (e.g., user access loss). The reference 'MS.AAD.2.1v1' is cryptic and adds little practical context.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core action without fluff. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the cryptic reference 'MS.AAD.2.1v1' could be seen as slightly extraneous.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical details like what 'high risk' means, how users are detected, the scope of the block, or what happens post-execution. Given the complexity implied by sibling tools, more context is needed for safe and effective use.

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 discuss parameters, avoiding redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied since it compensates adequately for the lack of parameters by not introducing confusion.

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 verb ('Block') and resource ('users detected as high risk'), making the purpose specific and actionable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'block_high_risk_signins' or 'block_legacy_auth', which reduces clarity in a crowded toolset.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'block_high_risk_signins' for sign-ins or 'block_legacy_auth' for authentication methods. The description lacks context on prerequisites, triggers, or exclusions, leaving usage ambiguous.

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