Retrieve Active Directory domain configuration, including password policies, account lockout settings, and security parameters, to assess domain security posture.
Get domain information and security settings.
Retrieves domain configuration including password policies, lockout settings, and security parameters.
Example:
get_domain_info()
Returns comprehensive domain security posture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read operation but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, required permissions, whether the call is expensive, or what the response contains beyond a vague 'comprehensive domain security posture'.
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 description is short and front-loaded, but it is repetitive: 'domain information and security settings', 'domain configuration', and 'comprehensive domain security posture' all restate the same idea without adding precision.
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 zero-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable scope of the returned data but does not describe the shape or key fields of the response. It is adequate but leaves an agent guessing about the return structure.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for no-parameter tools is 4.
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 states a specific verb (Get/Retrieves) and resource (domain information/configuration) and enumerates the data domains covered: password policies, lockout settings, and security parameters. This makes the tool distinguishable from user- and group-oriented siblings, though the overlap with get_password_policy_violations is not clarified.
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 is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_password_policy_violations or get_privileged_groups. The lone example 'get_domain_info()' only demonstrates the empty-argument call and does not explain usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.