AgentAegis

mfa_audit

Audit MFA coverage and strength by analyzing user accounts to identify gaps and weak methods.

Instructions

Assess MFA coverage and strength.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "users": "<users>"
    },
    "name": "mfa_audit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`users`	Yes
`previous_scan_id`	No	Optional. A prior scan_id (from agent_history) to record as this call's parent — builds a traversable chained-workflow lineage retrievable via agent_scan_get. Must be one of your own scans; ignored otherwise. Does not change this tool's analysis.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'assess', implying a read operation, but does not confirm side effects (e.g., read-only), authentication needs, rate limits, or output format. Minimal transparency.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single concise sentence that is front-loaded and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given a complex required parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or the nature of the assessment (e.g., whether it produces a report or updates state).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50% (only previous_scan_id has a description). The tool description adds no parameter insights, failing to compensate for the undocumented 'users' parameter. The meaning of 'users' must be inferred from the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Assess MFA coverage and strength' uses a clear verb-resource pair and is reasonably distinct from sibling tools like access_review or credential_check. However, it lacks specificity on what the assessment entails (e.g., report, metrics) and does not explicitly differentiate from similar tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to conditions, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The description simply states the purpose without usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.