Retrieve Microsoft 365 user accounts with login status and MFA details to identify security risks in an assessment.
Get Microsoft 365 user accounts with login status and MFA info for a risk assessment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Assessment UUID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the kind of data returned (login status and MFA info) and the name/verb imply a read-only list operation, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, describe response structure, or mention any permissions or limitations. This is adequate but not rich.
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?
The entire description is one focused sentence that front-loads the resource and purpose without any filler. Every phrase adds value: the resource, the data content, and the context.
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?
Given the simple one-parameter schema, this description is mostly sufficient: an agent knows what data to expect and how the tool fits into a risk assessment. It could be more complete by explicitly stating that it returns a list of user accounts or by describing the response format, but the missing details are minor for this tool's simplicity.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the single required parameter 'id' is already fully documented as 'Assessment UUID.' The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond reinforcing the risk-assessment context, which keeps it at the baseline for high schema coverage.
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?
The description clearly identifies the action ('Get'), the resource ('Microsoft 365 user accounts'), and the specific data returned ('login status and MFA info'). It also ties the tool to a risk-assessment context and distinguishes it from sibling tools like telivy_list_gws_users by naming Microsoft 365 explicitly.
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 phrase 'for a risk assessment' gives useful context, implying this tool should be used when M365 user data is needed during an assessment. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling Google Workspace tool, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.