Skip to main content
Glama
DynamicEndpoints

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

block_legacy_auth

Disable outdated authentication methods to enhance security by preventing unauthorized access through weak protocols.

Instructions

Block legacy authentication (MS.AAD.1.1v1)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the tool logic: patches the authenticationMethodsPolicy via Microsoft Graph API to block legacy authentication methods.
    private async blockLegacyAuth() {
      try {
        // Configure authentication policy using Microsoft Graph API
        await this.graphClient
          .api('/policies/authenticationMethodsPolicy')
          .patch({
            allowLegacyAuthentication: false,
            blockLegacyAuthenticationMethods: true,
          });
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: 'Legacy authentication blocked successfully',
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error: unknown) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InternalError,
          `Failed to block legacy authentication: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : 'Unknown error'}`
        );
      }
    }
  • Registers the tool in the ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema (empty object).
    {
      name: 'block_legacy_auth',
      description: 'Block legacy authentication (MS.AAD.1.1v1)',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
    },
  • Dispatches tool calls to the handler in the CallToolRequest switch statement.
    case 'block_legacy_auth':
      return await this.blockLegacyAuth();
  • Defines the input schema for the tool (empty object, no parameters required).
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {},
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Block') but doesn't clarify what 'blocking' entails operationally (e.g., immediate enforcement, policy configuration, user impact), whether it requires specific permissions, or what the expected outcome is. This leaves significant gaps for a security enforcement tool.

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 extremely concise - a single phrase that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and includes just enough context (the standard reference) to be meaningful. Every element earns its place.

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 security enforcement tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what 'blocking legacy authentication' means in practice, what systems or users are affected, whether the change is reversible, or what confirmation/result to expect. The context signals show this is a potentially impactful operation that needs more behavioral context.

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 has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately doesn't mention parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools when the schema coverage is complete.

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 legacy authentication') and specifies the resource/standard ('MS.AAD.1.1v1'), which indicates it's implementing a specific security control. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'block_high_risk_signins' or 'enforce_alternative_mfa', which also appear to be security enforcement tools in the same domain.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or relationships to other tools like 'complete_auth_methods_migration' or 'enforce_phishing_resistant_mfa' that might be part of a broader authentication security strategy.

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