Identifies and analyzes high-privilege Active Directory groups such as Domain Admins and Enterprise Admins for security auditing and compliance checks.
Get information about privileged groups.
Identifies and analyzes high-privilege groups including Domain Admins, Enterprise Admins, and other administrative groups.
Example:
get_privileged_groups()
Essential for security auditing and compliance.
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it never confirms this is a read-only operation, what scope it searches (domain vs. forest), or whether results are recursive. 'Identifies and analyzes' hints at computation but says nothing about output shape or cost.
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 opening line is front-loaded and clear, but the second sentence largely restates it, and the 'Example: get_privileged_groups()' block conveys nothing for a zero-argument tool. Meaningful content could be compressed to one sentence.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must compensate, and the biggest gap is the return value: an agent doesn't know whether it gets group names, member counts, or risk scores. It is adequate to know what the tool is for, but thin on what to expect.
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, which is the baseline-4 case; there are no argument semantics to mis-document. The empty schema means nothing is left ambiguous for the caller.
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 gives a specific verb ('Get information about') and a well-scoped resource ('privileged groups'), reinforced by concrete examples (Domain Admins, Enterprise Admins). It is narrower than generic siblings like list_groups or get_group, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with audit_admin_accounts.
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 only usage signal is the tail phrase 'Essential for security auditing and compliance', which is a generic endorsement rather than a when-to-use rule. It gives no guidance on choosing this over audit_admin_accounts, get_user_permissions, or get_group_members, all of which plausibly overlap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.