Skip to main content
Glama
DynamicEndpoints

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

restrict_group_consent

Prevent group owners from granting application consent to enforce security policies and control access permissions in Microsoft 365 environments.

Instructions

Prevent group owners from consenting to applications (MS.AAD.5.4v1)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the restrict_group_consent tool. It patches the groupConsentPolicy via Microsoft Graph API to enable it and block group owner consent for apps.
    private async restrictGroupConsent() {
      try {
        // Configure group consent settings using Microsoft Graph API
        await this.graphClient
          .api('/policies/groupConsentPolicy')
          .patch({
            isEnabled: true,
            blockGroupOwnerConsentForApps: true,
          });
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: 'text',
              text: 'Group owner application consent blocked successfully',
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error: unknown) {
        throw new McpError(
          ErrorCode.InternalError,
          `Failed to restrict group consent: ${error instanceof Error ? error.message : 'Unknown error'}`
        );
      }
    }
  • Registration of the restrict_group_consent tool in the ListTools response, including name, description, and input schema (empty object).
    {
      name: 'restrict_group_consent',
      description: 'Prevent group owners from consenting to applications (MS.AAD.5.4v1)',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
    },
  • Dispatch case in the CallToolRequest handler that routes to the restrictGroupConsent method.
    case 'restrict_group_consent':
      return await this.restrictGroupConsent();
  • Input schema for the tool (empty object, no parameters required).
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {},
      },
    },
  • Helper in get_policy_status that checks the status of group consent policy.
    groupConsent: {
      blocked: groupConsent.blockGroupOwnerConsentForApps,
      compliant: true,
    },
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 configuration change ('Prevent') but does not specify whether this is a read-only or destructive operation, what permissions are required, or any side effects like impact on existing consents. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 complexity of a configuration tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, usage context, and expected outcomes, making it incomplete for an agent to reliably invoke this tool in a real-world scenario.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but this is acceptable given the lack of parameters, warranting a baseline score of 4 for adequate coverage in this context.

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 ('Prevent') and target ('group owners from consenting to applications'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'restrict_app_consent' or 'configure_admin_consent', which limits the score to 4 instead of 5.

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 'restrict_app_consent' or 'configure_admin_consent', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does without context for 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