Audit tenant-wide email signatures and legal disclaimers in Exchange Transport Rules to verify compliance and identify misconfigured or missing disclaimers.
Audits tenant-wide email signatures and legal disclaimers configured via Exchange Transport Rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Audits' implies a non-destructive read and 'tenant-wide' discloses scope, both useful. However, it never explicitly confirms read-only behavior, permissions needed, or how it differs operationally from a plain transport-rule listing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single tight sentence with the scope ('tenant-wide') and source ('Exchange Transport Rules') front-loaded. Nothing is padding, though it is almost too terse to carry behavioral weight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and there are no parameters to cover. The description gives enough to understand what is audited and where the data comes from; only auth/permission context is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing to document and no semantics to misstate. Baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (audits) and resource (tenant-wide email signatures and legal disclaimers), plus the mechanism (Exchange Transport Rules). This meaningfully separates it from siblings like m365_list_transport_rules, though it doesn't explicitly declare that differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this versus m365_list_transport_rules or the other compliance_audit_* tools. The agent is left to infer usage from the one-line purpose statement alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.