Skip to main content
Glama
DynamicEndpoints

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

enforce_alternative_mfa

Enforce alternative multi-factor authentication methods when phishing-resistant MFA is not implemented, addressing Microsoft 365 security compliance requirements.

Instructions

Enforce alternative MFA method if phishing-resistant MFA not enforced (MS.AAD.3.2v1)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the 'enforce_alternative_mfa' tool by updating the authentication methods policy to enable Microsoft Authenticator as an alternative MFA method.
    private async enforceAlternativeMFA() {
      try {
        // Configure alternative MFA using Microsoft Graph API
        await this.graphClient
          .api('/policies/authenticationMethodsPolicy')
          .patch({
            policies: {
              microsoftAuthenticator: {
                isEnabled: true,
                isSelfServiceRegistrationAllowed: true,
              },
            },
          });
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: 'Alternative MFA method enforced successfully',
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error: unknown) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InternalError,
          `Failed to enforce alternative MFA: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : 'Unknown error'}`
        );
      }
    }
  • Registration of the 'enforce_alternative_mfa' tool in the MCP server, including name, description, and empty input schema.
    {
      name: 'enforce_alternative_mfa',
      description: 'Enforce alternative MFA method if phishing-resistant MFA not enforced (MS.AAD.3.2v1)',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
    },
  • Input schema for the 'enforce_alternative_mfa' tool, which requires no parameters.
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
    },
  • Dispatch logic in the CallToolRequest handler that routes to the enforceAlternativeMFA method.
    case 'enforce_alternative_mfa':
      return await this.enforceAlternativeMFA();
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 states the tool enforces an alternative MFA method, implying a mutation operation, but doesn't disclose critical details such as required permissions, whether changes are reversible, or any rate limits. The reference 'MS.AAD.3.2v1' adds some context but is cryptic without explanation.

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 front-loads the core action and condition. However, the cryptic reference 'MS.AAD.3.2v1' adds minor clutter without clear value, slightly reducing conciseness.

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 (enforcement implies mutation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the alternative MFA method entails, what the enforcement process involves, or what the expected outcome is, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand and use the tool effectively.

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 doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate and maintains a baseline score of 4, as it doesn't need to compensate for gaps in the schema.

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 ('Enforce alternative MFA method') and the condition ('if phishing-resistant MFA not enforced'), providing a specific verb and context. It distinguishes from sibling 'enforce_phishing_resistant_mfa' by specifying an alternative method, though it doesn't explicitly name the resource or differentiate from other MFA-related tools like 'enforce_privileged_mfa'.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when phishing-resistant MFA is not enforced, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'enforce_phishing_resistant_mfa' or 'enforce_privileged_mfa'. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat vague.

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