Audit mailboxes with Litigation Hold or Retention Hold enabled to verify legal preservation and compliance. Identify holds for eDiscovery and retention audits.
Audits mailboxes with Litigation Hold or Retention Hold enabled for legal preservation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| identity | No |
| 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 full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only audit but never states that it is non-destructive, what permissions or identity scope are required, or how results are limited. For a compliance audit tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.
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?
One tight sentence with the scope constraints front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the purpose statement is clear. However, with no annotations, no usage guidance, and an undocumented parameter, the definition is only minimally sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The single 'identity' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description, so an agent has no guidance on whose mailboxes are audited or what the null default means. Only the low parameter count keeps this from being a 1.
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 a precise resource ('mailboxes with Litigation Hold or Retention Hold enabled for legal preservation'), which distinguishes it from compliance_audit_retention_policies and compliance_audit_recoverable_items by scope. It does not explicitly name or route away from any sibling, so it sits at 4 rather than 5.
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?
The description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives among the many compliance_* and m365_* audit siblings. The agent must infer that this is the tool for litigation-hold investigations from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.