Activates a disabled Active Directory user account by updating the userAccountControl attribute, restoring the ability to log in and access domain resources.
Enable a user account.
Activates a disabled user account by modifying the userAccountControl attribute.
Example:
enable_user(username="jsmith")
Allows user to log in and access domain resources.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| username | Yes | Username to enable |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does well on the mechanism (userAccountControl mutation) and the resulting effect (login and domain access), but says nothing about required privileges, idempotency, or failure when the account is already enabled.
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?
Front-loads the action, then the mechanism, then the outcome, with a compact example. No filler sentences, though the example line is a modest use of space for a single trivially-typed parameter.
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?
For a one-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what changes and what the user gains. It still omits permission prerequisites and the return/error shape, which an agent would need before calling it in an automated flow.
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 coverage is 100% on the single username parameter, so the schema already documents it. The example call adds a small amount of value by showing the plain-username format with no domain prefix, but nothing beyond that.
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 and resource ("Enable a user account") and even names the underlying mechanism, modifying the userAccountControl attribute. The distinction from the sibling disable_user is only implicit in the naming, not stated outright, so it lands just short of the top mark.
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?
Usage is implied by "Activates a disabled user account," which tells the agent the precondition is a currently disabled account. There is no explicit guidance on alternatives (e.g., modify_user) or what to do if the account is already enabled.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.