Retrieves schema details for all available Active Directory tools, including parameters and capabilities, to support API documentation and integration.
Get schema information for all available tools.
Retrieves comprehensive information about all tools, their parameters, and capabilities.
Example:
get_schema_info()
Useful for API documentation and integration.
| 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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns comprehensive information about all tools, their parameters, and capabilities, but says nothing about output format, size, auth requirements, or that it is a read-only operation.
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 two sentences are front-loaded and efficient. However, the example line '- get_schema_info()' adds no information for a zero-parameter tool, and the closing sentence is vague filler, so the description is not as tight as it could be.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain return values more concretely. It states the tool returns comprehensive tool, parameter, and capability information, which is directionally useful, but an agent still lacks structure/format details needed to consume the result.
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 has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% description coverage. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4; no additional parameter semantics are needed.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('schema information for all available tools') and clarifies that it covers parameters and capabilities. It is clearly a meta/introspection tool, distinct from all the AD object-management siblings, though 'schema information' is slightly abstract until the second sentence.
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 'Useful for API documentation and integration,' which implies a context but does not specify when to call it, when not to, or alternatives. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.