EntraID MCP Server

by baoduy

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Remote

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action combination (e.g., user sign-ins vs. group MFA status vs. device compliance states). Even similar operations like list_applications vs. list_service_principals are clearly separated by resource type.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern with consistent verbs like get, list, create, update, delete, add, remove. Minor inconsistencies: some listing tools use get_all_* (get_all_groups, get_all_managed_devices) while others use list_* (list_applications, list_service_principals), and reset_user_password_direct includes a distinguishing suffix not seen elsewhere.
Tool Count2/5
With 48 tools, the surface is very heavy. While the broad EntraID domain partially justifies the size, the count exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and may overwhelm agents with redundant near-misses (e.g., multiple get_*_by_id methods).
Completeness2/5
The set is asymmetric: full CRUD exists for groups, applications, and service principals, but users lack create/update/delete, conditional access policies are read-only, and there are no role assignment management tools. This causes agent failures for common management tasks.
Average 3.6/5 across 48 of 48 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on April 24, 2026
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only indicates a mutation ('Create') without explaining side effects, permissions, or response format. This leaves critical behavioral traits undisclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded with the action, but it is under-specified to the point of being nearly tautological. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to provide meaningful structure or context beyond the tool's name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a create tool with a complex opaque parameter and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain how to construct sp_data, what the expected output is, or any prerequisites, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage and the sole parameter 'sp_data' is an opaque object with no properties. The description does not compensate by explaining what sp_data should contain, leaving the agent without any guidance on how to invoke the tool.
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 clearly states 'Create a new service principal' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_service_principals, get_service_principal_by_id, update_service_principal, and delete_service_principal. It lacks mention of scope or specific context, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as create_application or create_group. The description only states the action itself, offering no context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits on its own. It only says 'update' without mentioning permissions, reversibility, whether the update is partial or full replacement, or any side effects. This is a significant transparency gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single short sentence, so it is concise and easy to parse. However, it is under-specified; while it earns its place, it could carry more useful information without becoming verbose.
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 the tool's complexity (a free-form data object, no annotations), the description is far from complete. It lacks information about required fields, update semantics, and return behavior, making it insufficient for an agent to confidently invoke the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The sp_data parameter is an open object (additionalProperties: true) with no guidance on fields or format, leaving the agent without critical information to construct a valid request.
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 clearly identifies the action (update) and the target resource (existing service principal). However, it doesn't specify what aspects of the service principal can be updated or how this differs from create/delete operations beyond the verb.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus the sibling create_service_principal or delete_service_principal tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios for updating an existing service principal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention case sensitivity, whether it searches by permission name or value, pagination, or the availability of the permission_type filter. The behavior is essentially opaque beyond the basic search action.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and immediately states the tool's action and object.
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 the tool's connection to other permission-related tools and the presence of an output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain what fields are matched, how the optional permission_type filter works, or what the response contains. It lacks enough context for an agent to fully understand the tool's scope.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints at 'search_term' via the word 'keyword' and says nothing about 'permission_type'. This adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names and types.
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 uses the specific verb 'Search' and resource 'Microsoft Graph permissions', and adds 'by keyword' to define the scope. It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_all_graph_permissions or suggest_permissions_for_task.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no exclusions, and no context about how it differs from listing all permissions or suggesting permissions for a task.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'update', which implies mutation, but does not disclose whether the operation is a full replacement or partial patch, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, or any side effects. The lack of details is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, terse sentence with no redundancy or fluff. It is appropriately sized for the minimal content it provides, though it lacks any structured breakdown of parameters or usage. It earns its place by stating the core purpose without unnecessary words.
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?
For a tool with two parameters, including a nested object, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the structure or semantics of app_data, nor does it mention return values or behavior. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged, and critical details that an agent would need for correct invocation are missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema contains two parameters (app_id and app_data) with no descriptions, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain what app_data should contain or how it is applied (e.g., merged or replaced), failing to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action 'Update' and the resource 'application (app registration)', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_application, delete_application, and get_application_by_id. It also specifies 'existing', implying the target must already exist, which is useful for selection.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites explicitly stated. The phrase 'existing application' implies the user must have an app_id, but there is no explicit 'use this when...' or comparison with create/delete/get tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the additive action, without mentioning idempotency, duplicate handling, permission requirements, or potential side effects. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.
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 sentence that directly states the purpose with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized for a tool with two simple parameters.
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?
Despite having a complete schema and an output schema, the description is too sparse for a mutation tool. It lacks guidance on user permissions, duplicate handling, and potential errors, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents both parameters fully (group_id and member_id), with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Add') and the resource ('a member to a group'), making the purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like add_group_owner, but the distinction is obvious from the wording.
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?
No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide any context about selection criteria. The name implies its use, but the description itself lacks any guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only reveals the direct-password behavior, ignoring the password generation, password_length, and require_change_on_next_sign_in behaviors. Side effects like session invalidation or admin requirements are not disclosed, making the behavioral picture incomplete.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and easy to parse, though it omits crucial details about the tool's dual modes, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.
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 the tool has 5 parameters and an output schema, the description is too short to provide complete context. It fails to mention the generate_password and password_length interplay, the default of require_change_on_next_sign_in, or any post-reset effects. More description needed for a non-trivial tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all five parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond emphasizing 'specific password value', which aligns with the password parameter but does not clarify the generate_password interaction or defaults. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly identifies the action (reset) and the target resource (user's password), and the 'specific password value' distinguishes it from any sibling reset tool. However, it omits the generate_password capability, which is also part of the tool's purpose, so it's not fully comprehensive.
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, nor any mention of when to use the direct password path versus the generate_password option. The description simply states the action without contextual or conditional usage advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as idempotency, required permissions, side effects, or what happens on success. The description adds no context beyond the basic create operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no fluff, efficiently stating the purpose. It is appropriately short, though it arguably lacks useful structural detail.
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?
With no annotations, an opaque parameter, and only a minimal one-line description, the tool is under-specified. Even though an output schema exists, the agent is left without critical context about how to populate app_data or what to expect on creation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'app_data' parameter at all. The schema shows an opaque object with additionalProperties true, but the description adds no meaning about its required structure or content.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Create a new application' with the parenthetical '(app registration)' clarifying the resource type. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like create_service_principal or update_application.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: use this tool when you need to create a new application. However, it provides no explicit guidance on prerequisites, when to choose this over create_service_principal, or any alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation ('add') but fails to mention idempotency, permission requirements, error handling, or effect of adding an existing owner. Minimal additional value beyond the tool name.
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?
A single, direct sentence that is perfectly concise and front-loaded. Every word contributes to the meaning, with no irrelevant details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, with an output schema and well-documented parameters, making the description functionally adequate. However, it lacks usage guidance and behavioral nuance, such as the distinction from add_group_member or whether admin privileges are required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for group_id and owner_id, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, but the schema already adequately explains the parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Add an owner to a group' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly stating the action and target. It inherently distinguishes from sibling add_group_member by specifying 'owner' rather than 'member'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_group_member, or any prerequisites or exclusions. The description gives no usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states 'delete' but does not disclose consequences such as permanence, cascading effects on members/owners, required permissions, or irreversibility. For a mutation tool, this is minimal disclosure.
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 clear sentence with no filler or repetition. It does its job efficiently and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
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?
Although the tool is simple (one parameter, output schema present), the description lacks essential context for a destructive operation. It does not mention side effects, failure modes, or permission requirements, leaving the agent without enough information to invoke it safely.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the parameter description 'ID of the group to delete' is explicit. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (Delete) and resource (a group from Microsoft Graph), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_group, update_group, and add_group_member. The scope is unambiguous and immediately actionable.
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 or any prerequisites/exclusions. It does not mention that this is a destructive operation or caution about confirmations, nor does it differentiate from related delete tools for other resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the delete operation but does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, potential cascading effects, or that the service principal is permanently removed. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.
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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and immediately understandable. No wasted words or irrelevant information.
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?
The tool is a one-parameter delete operation with no annotations. The description is minimally adequate but lacks crucial context for a destructive action, such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or what happens to linked resources. An output schema exists but does not compensate for missing behavioral context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only specifies 'sp_id' as a string with no description. The tool description adds that this is the 'object ID' of the service principal, which provides essential meaning to the parameter. However, it does not clarify the format, source, or validation rules, and schema coverage is 0%.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Delete' and identifies the resource as 'service principal' with the scope 'by its object ID.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_service_principal, update_service_principal, and get_service_principal_by_id.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites, or consequences. The description only states the action itself; it does not mention any contexts where deletion is appropriate or inappropriate, nor does it reference sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely states the action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether removal is permanent, permission requirements, error cases, or side effects on related resources. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 sentence that fully captures the tool's purpose. Every word contributes value, with no unnecessary elaboration or repetition.
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?
For a simple tool with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description might be considered sufficient on the surface. However, since it's a destructive/removal operation with no annotations, the absence of behavioral context (e.g., reversibility, permissions, impact on group counts) leaves the description incomplete for an AI agent making a safe decision.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already explains both group_id and member_id. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is appropriate given the schema's completeness. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('a member from a group'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like remove_group_owner or add_group_member. Even though it's brief, it unambiguously states the tool's core function.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, when it should be used, or provide exclusions. With many sibling tools, some explicit direction would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose the return format, error behavior (e.g., not found), or any required permissions. This is a minimal description that only states the basic action.
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 exactly one sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. It is highly efficient and appropriate for the simplicity of the tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, given the large set of siblings and the absence of any usage or behavioral context, it could do more to help the agent select it appropriately. The output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the lack of guidance on when to use this tool versus search/list alternatives is a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter 'group_id' with 0% description coverage. The description's 'by its ID' clarifies that the parameter is the group identifier, adding some meaning. However, it does not specify expected format or constraints, so the description only partially compensates for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'specific group by its ID', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_all_groups and search_groups_by_name. It fully answers what the tool does in a single, unambiguous phrase.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings. While the description implies it is for fetching by known ID, there is no explicit mention of alternatives like searching by name or listing all groups, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention authentication requirements, error handling, data volume, or any side effects. The word 'Get' implies a read operation, but no further traits are revealed.
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, direct sentence with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is well-structured and immediately conveys the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema, so the description is marginally adequate. However, the absence of behavioral details and usage guidance leaves gaps that could affect correct invocation in some contexts.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides a complete description of the user_id parameter (100% coverage). The description adds only the scope 'for a specific user,' which is marginal. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('MFA status and methods') and scope ('for a specific user'), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_user_by_id or get_group_mfa_status.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user_sign_ins or list_user_password_methods. The sibling list offers context but the description itself gives no explicit usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It merely restates the tool's name and does not disclose behavioral details such as read-only status, required permissions, pagination, or response characteristics.
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 clear sentence with no redundancy or unnecessary detail, achieving maximum conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is relatively simple and the output schema likely covers return format, but the description omits guidance on how 'password authentication methods' differ from related concepts (e.g., MFA status) and provides no edge-case context. It is functional but lacks surrounding information to fully distinguish tool usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has one parameter, user_id, with no description (0% coverage). The description implies that user_id identifies the user whose methods are listed, which adds some meaning, but it does not specify the ID format or any additional semantics.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a user's password authentication methods'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_user_password_method' (singular) by using the plural 'methods'.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_user_password_method' or 'get_user_mfa_status'. It lacks any mention of exclusions or contextual scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds a useful qualifier ('based on common mappings') suggesting non-exhaustive or opinionated results, but does not explain failure modes, determinism, or whether the tool is read-only. This is minimal but not entirely absent.
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 sentence with no filler. It communicates the core purpose and the key qualifier ('common mappings') without redundancy, making it extremely efficient.
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?
Despite the simple schema and output schema, the description omits critical context about parameter values and how the tool relates to other permission tools. The sibling list_permission_categories_and_tasks hints at a possible workflow, but the description doesn't mention it, leaving the agent under-informed for a 2-parameter tool with zero schema documentation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not define what task_category or task_name should contain. The terms 'task' and 'category' are generic and give no concrete guidance on valid values or expected format. The agent is left to infer input requirements.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the specific action (suggest permissions) for a targeted resource (Microsoft Graph) with a clear scope ('based on common mappings'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_permissions and get_all_graph_permissions by focusing on task-to-permission mapping.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you have a task and need permission suggestions) but provides no explicit exclusions or alternatives. No mention of when to use this instead of list_permission_categories_and_tasks or search_permissions, leaving the decision to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries the full burden but discloses no side effects, permission requirements, or partial-update behavior; it merely restates the operation in generic terms.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The schema and output schema cover parameters and return format, but the description omits behavioral details like scopes or whether the update is partial; adequate for a simple tool but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with group_id and group_data fully documented, so the description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('update') and the resource ('existing group in Microsoft Graph'), using a specific verb and distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_group and delete_group.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it does not mention create_group for new groups or any specific usage context beyond the word 'existing'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action and target, with no mention of error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), required permissions, or potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a read operation.
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 ('Get a specific application by its object ID.') with no filler or redundant information. It is fully front-loaded and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one required parameter, output schema present), and the description conveys the basic purpose and parameter semantics. However, it lacks usage context (e.g., when to use vs. listing) and behavioral details (permissions, error handling), making it minimally adequate but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (app_id) with no description, and the description adds meaning by identifying it as the 'object ID', which clarifies the parameter's role. However, it does not provide format details or further context beyond a single phrase, so it only partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves a specific application using its object ID, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_applications and get_service_principal_by_id by emphasizing a single resource and lookup by ID.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching a single record by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like list_applications, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance is minimal and implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states a read operation ('Get') and vague 'comprehensive details', but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, error behavior (e.g., 404 if not found), rate limits, or what 'comprehensive' actually includes. This is insufficient for an agent to anticipate the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
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, immediately front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler or redundant phrases. It communicates the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema present, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks any mention of related workflow (e.g., 'list policies first' or use with a specific sibling) and gives no context about when this tool is the right choice. The description is minimally sufficient but not fully complete for an agent deciding among many sibling tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 100% description coverage for the only parameter (policy_id), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond reaffirming 'by its ID' and does not provide extra context about the parameter format, constraints, or examples, which is acceptable given the schema already describes it well.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get') and resource ('conditional access policy') with an explicit qualifier ('single' and 'by its ID'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_conditional_access_policies' which lists policies. The addition of 'with comprehensive details' clarifies the scope of the returned data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the description and tool name (use when you have a policy ID and need one policy), but no explicit guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_conditional_access_policies. There is no mention of when not to use it or what other tools might be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions 'beta endpoint' as a caveat but does not explain potential instability, authorization requirements, or whether the list is filtered. This leaves significant gaps.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded, and free of redundancy. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description is adequate but does not specify return format, pagination, or relationship to sibling tools. The 'beta endpoint' note adds context but not enough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info, but none is needed since there are no parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all Intune device compliance policies' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing from related tools like get_device_compliance_policy_states which handles policy states.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus similar list tools (e.g., get_device_configurations, get_conditional_access_policies). The usage is implied but not stated with alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get', which implies a read operation, but does not disclose any permissions required, potential errors (e.g., not found), rate limits, or side effects. The lack of any behavioral detail leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's safety and failure modes.
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, focused sentence that communicates the core function without any unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action verb and clearly states the object and scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is a simple getter with two required parameters, and an output schema exists to define the return format. However, the description lacks usage guidance and behavioral details, especially given the absence of annotations and schema descriptions. It is sufficient for a basic understanding but not fully complete for confident invocation without additional assumptions.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning by indicating that user_id identifies the user and method_id identifies the specific password authentication method. However, it does not explain formats, how to obtain these IDs, or that method_id is a unique identifier within the user's methods, leaving some ambiguity.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource ('password authentication method') and scope ('specific', 'for a user'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_user_password_methods and reset_user_password_direct by emphasizing the specific method retrieval.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving a single password method by user and method ID, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. No mention of using list_user_password_methods for multiple methods or reset_user_password_direct for modifications, so guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral implications. It states 'Create' (a write operation) but omits permission requirements, potential side effects, or prerequisites. The one-sentence description provides no additional context about what happens when a group is created.
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, straightforward sentence that states exactly what the tool does with no unnecessary words. It is appropriately minimal and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The complex nested parameter is fully documented in the schema, and an output schema exists, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks any context about permissions or when to use this over other group-management tools, which is minor given the clarity of the schema and sibling names.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage of the group_data property, documenting all sub-properties with descriptions and required flags. The description adds no extra parameter information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool creates a new group in Microsoft Graph. The verb 'create' and resource 'group' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling update/delete and read tools. Even though there are other 'create' tools, the resource type is explicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus updating or deleting a group. Usage is implied by the purpose and the existence of sibling tools like update_group and delete_group, but no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions fetching all permissions from the API, but fails to disclose pagination behavior, authorization requirements, response size, or whether it covers both delegated and application permission types.
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 sentence of 14 words that immediately conveys the action and source. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description is structurally adequate. However, it could benefit from clarifying the scope of 'permissions' or noting whether the result is a flat list, but these are non-critical for a no-input fetch tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. Per the baseline for no-parameter tools, the description need not add parameter details; it appropriately says nothing about parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all Microsoft Graph permissions from the Microsoft Graph API, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_permissions by emphasizing 'all' rather than a filtered subset.
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?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_permissions or suggest_permissions_for_task. The phrase 'directly from the Microsoft Graph API' hints at a live fetch but does not elaborate on use cases or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only restates the tool's purpose without disclosing any behavioral traits such as required permissions, potential for large result sets, pagination behavior, or what happens for empty groups. This is a significant gap for a tool that may access sensitive MFA data.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition. It is optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has one parameter, a 100% documented schema, and an output schema that covers return values. The description is sufficient for a simple getter, though it could add context about permissions or scope. Overall, it is complete enough given the low complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter group_id, which is described as 'The unique identifier of the group.' The tool description adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get MFA status for all members of a group.' uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resource ('MFA status for all members of a group'). It distinguishes from sibling get_user_mfa_status by specifying group-level scope.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for group-level MFA queries, and the group_id parameter makes the target clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like get_user_mfa_status or get_group_members, nor does it provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the action and parameter, offering no details on read-only nature, permission requirements, error handling for invalid IDs, or what fields are returned. This adds no transparency beyond the tool name itself.
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, front-loaded with the essential purpose. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter getter with an output schema, a one-line description is mostly sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. However, it lacks notes on prerequisites or edge-case behavior, but given the tool's simplicity and the schema's presence, the context is nearly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has only one parameter (sp_id) with 0% description coverage. The description says 'by its object ID', which helps interpret sp_id as an object ID, but it does not explicitly define the parameter or mention its type/format. This partial compensation keeps it adequate but not thorough.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('service principal') with a precise scope ('by its object ID'). It unambiguously distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_service_principals' and 'get_application_by_id' by specifying the resource and identifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you have a service principal object ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'list_service_principals' for lookup-by-name or 'search_users'. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations, so guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get a specific user by their ID,' which adds no information beyond the tool's name and implies a read operation. It does not mention authentication, potential errors, or return behavior.
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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple lookup tool and immediately conveys the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple get-by-ID tool with a documented parameter and an output schema, the description is adequate. It lacks details about not-found behavior or edge cases, but these are partially covered by the schema and the simplicity of the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% and the user_id parameter is well described in the schema. The tool description merely echoes 'by their ID' without adding extra semantic context beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Get a specific user by their ID' uses a specific verb and identifies the resource precisely. It naturally distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_users or get_user_groups by focusing on direct retrieval by unique identifier.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage context is implied—use when you have a user ID—but no explicit guidance is given about when to prefer this over alternatives like search_users. There are no exclusions or alternative mentions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read operation through 'Get' but does not mention authentication requirements, potential pagination, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that lists all devices.
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 with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the core action and the optional parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one optional parameter and has an output schema, so return values are covered. However, the description lacks context on important operational aspects like paging limits or permissions, especially since there are no annotations. It is minimally complete but leaves gaps for a production environment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema provides only a type and default for filter_os, with 0% description coverage. The description explicitly explains that filter_os filters by OS, adding meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It could be more specific about accepted values, but it sufficiently clarifies the parameter's purpose.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: retrieving all managed devices with an optional OS filter. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_managed_device_by_id (single device) and get_managed_devices_by_user (devices for a specific user).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a broad list-all use case with optional filtering, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or when-not conditions. The context is clear but guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full disclosure. It only states the action without any behavioral details such as permissions required, failure modes (e.g., user not found), or whether inherited roles are included. This is a minimal read tool, but the description doesn't go beyond the basic purpose.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the core meaning, making it highly concise and scannable.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter read operation, the description fully specifies what the tool does and the input. The output schema (not shown) can explain return structure. It doesn't mention prerequisites or error behavior, but for this low-complexity tool, the description is adequate.
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?
The schema has no description for user_id (0% coverage), and the description only says 'by user ID,' which is thin. It doesn't clarify the expected format (e.g., object ID vs UPN) or how to obtain it, though sibling tools like get_user_by_id imply the ID type. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get all directory roles assigned to a user') and the input key ('by user ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_groups (groups vs roles) and get_user_by_id (user profile vs roles).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It explicitly requires a user ID, making the context clear. It doesn't name alternatives or exclusions, but the resource (directory roles) is distinct from sibling tools, so the intended usage is obvious. Slightly less explicit than naming alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It discloses 'with paging,' which is useful, but does not state whether the operation is read-only (though implied by 'List'), nor does it explain pagination mechanics or any permission requirements. This is minimal but non-tautological behavioral content.
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 front-loads the action and resource, with no fluff or repetition. It says exactly what the tool does in minimal words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (one optional parameter, output schema present), the description covers the core function: listing all service principals. 'With paging' hints at pagination but doesn't detail the next-link mechanism, so it's not fully complete, yet sufficient for a straightforward list operation.
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?
The input schema has one parameter ('limit') with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. The description says 'with paging' but fails to clarify that 'limit' controls page size, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema's field name and default.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List all service principals in the tenant, with paging' uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('service principals') with scope ('in the tenant'), and distinguishes from the sibling tool get_service_principal_by_id by explicitly covering all principals rather than a single one.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for enumerating all service principals but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention when to prefer get_service_principal_by_id for a specific principal, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action ('Get') without revealing whether the operation is read-only, whether paging/filtering is involved, or any permission requirements. The one-line description adds minimal transparency beyond the tool name.
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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It efficiently conveys the core purpose in under ten words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a list-all operation. However, it doesn't mention potential caveats like pagination or tenant scope, and the absence of annotations leaves a small gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so the schema fully covers parameter semantics. The description doesn't need to add param details, and the baseline of 4 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves all conditional access policies with a specific verb ('Get') and resource scope. The word 'all' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'get_conditional_access_policy_by_id', which targets a single policy.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for listing all policies, but it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when to prefer the singular policy retrieval tool. Sibling tools provide context, but the description itself offers no guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'beta endpoint', which is a useful caveat, and 'List' implies a read-only operation, but it does not disclose potential pagination, output size, or other behavioral traits. This is adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It conveys the action, resource, and beta status efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter list tool with an output schema, the description adequately states what it does and includes the beta caveat. However, it does not position the tool among similar device-related siblings, leaving some contextual gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed because there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('Intune device configuration profiles') with a beta caveat. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_device_configuration_states or get_device_compliance_policies, which address different resources.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. It is a bare statement of functionality without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It states 'List' which implies a read-only operation, but provides no further details on response size, pagination, required permissions, or whether the categories/tasks are static or dynamic. It essentially restates the tool name, offering minimal behavioral 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 clear sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with no unnecessary words. It sacrifices no clarity for brevity given the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and an output schema exists, the description adequately captures the tool's purpose in context. However, it could briefly note typical usage (e.g., 'Use this to populate permission suggestion dropdowns') to improve completeness, so 4 is appropriate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already fully specifies the input requirements. The description adds scope ('all available') but no parameter-specific detail is needed. Baseline of 4 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('all available categories and tasks'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling permission-related tools like search_permissions or suggest_permissions_for_task. The phrase 'for permission suggestions' adds domain context.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when one needs the set of categories/tasks for permission suggestions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives like suggest_permissions_for_task or get_all_graph_permissions. No exclusions or conditions are given, so guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description supplies some behavioral context by noting case-insensitive and partial-match search, plus paging. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or if any permissions/limits apply, which is left to inference from the tool name.
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 with the main action and includes key modifiers. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter search tool, the description covers the core behavior and matching semantics. The existence of an output schema handles return-value details. However, it could benefit from mentioning when to use it versus listing all groups, but that falls under usage guidelines.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description clarifies that the 'name' parameter refers to the display name to search for, and 'with paging' implies the 'limit' parameter controls result-page size. This compensates for the lack of schema property descriptions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool searches for groups by display name, with specific matching behavior (case-insensitive, partial match) and paging. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_all_groups or search_users.
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?
The description does not provide guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as get_all_groups or get_group_by_id. It implies usage for name-based search but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, and the mention of 'beta endpoint' adds a caveat about stability. However, it does not explicitly state that it is safe, non-mutating, or describe permission requirements. This is adequate but not thorough.
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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the purpose, scope, and a beta caveat without unnecessary words. Every word contributes value, making it highly concise and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple single-parameter tool with an output schema, this description is mostly complete. It identifies what is returned (compliance-policy states) and the target (specific device). It could elaborate on what the states represent or how to relate to sibling tools, but the existing context is sufficient given the tool's low complexity.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage and only one parameter, device_id. The description's 'for a specific Intune managed device' adds little beyond the parameter name itself, offering no format, source, or usage example. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'compliance-policy states', and the scope 'for a specific Intune managed device'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_device_compliance_policies (which lists policies) and get_device_configuration_states (which handles configuration states).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for a specific Intune managed device' provides clear context that this tool operates on a single device rather than listing or aggregating. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the per-device scope is a clear usage signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description communicates a read operation ('Get') and scoping to a user, but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as permissions required, what happens if the user ID is invalid, or whether the result is paginated. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and falls short of full 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, succinct sentence that delivers the core information without fluff. It is appropriately short for a tool with one parameter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a simple signature with one parameter and an output schema, so a short description is acceptable. However, it could be more complete by mentioning that this operation is read-only or naming alternative tools for all-device or single-device queries, which are nearby siblings.
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?
The input schema provides a single required parameter user_id with no further description (0% coverage). The description only restates 'a specific userId' and does not clarify the expected format (e.g., GUID, UPN, email) or any constraints, leaving the agent to guess.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'Get' and identifies the resource 'managed devices' scoped to 'a specific userId'. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_all_managed_devices (no user filter) and get_managed_device_by_id (single device by ID).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly indicates the intended use case (devices for a specific user) but does not explicitly state when to use an alternative tool. The sibling names suggest a family of device tools, but without explicit guidance, the agent must infer exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It accurately reveals the read-only nature ('Get') and adds the key detail of transitive memberships. However, it does not disclose potential errors, permission requirements, or any operational limits, which would be useful but not critical for a simple read operation.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It immediately states the action and includes the important qualifier about transitive memberships. Perfectly concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one parameter and an output schema. The description covers the core behavior and the output schema likely documents return values. It does not mention error conditions, but for a straightforward get operation this is not a significant omission. Overall, the description is sufficient for effective use.
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?
The input schema has one required parameter, user_id, with 0% schema description coverage. The description's phrase 'by user ID' adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name—it does not clarify format, constraints, or any additional context. The low coverage is not sufficiently compensated by the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'all groups for a user', and the specific behavior 'including transitive memberships'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_all_groups and get_group_members by scoping to a single user and clarifying membership type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use this tool: when you need a user's group memberships, including nested ones. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for a sibling-aware agent. No direct reference to sibling tools is made.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation returns a paginated list, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not explain pagination mechanics, default page size, or any required permissions, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
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?
A single, concise sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word contributes essential information, and there is no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers the core purpose and mentions paging. An output schema exists, so return values are handled elsewhere. However, the paging behavior and limit semantics are under-specified, preventing a perfect score.
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?
The input schema has one parameter (limit) with no description, and the description does not explicitly explain the limit parameter. The phrase 'with paging' vaguely implies a relationship, but an agent cannot confirm that limit controls page size. With 0% schema coverage, this is a notable gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List all applications (app registrations) in the tenant' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_application_by_id and list_service_principals by clarifying it lists all app registrations at the tenant level.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: to enumerate all app registrations in the tenant. The mention of paging indicates it is suitable for potentially large result sets. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it, though the 'all' scope makes this fairly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds value by mentioning paging and a limit, which are behavioral traits beyond the name. However, it does not describe ordering, response format, or potential side effects, leaving some gaps for a read-only list operation.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key behavior. It contains no filler or redundant information, earning a perfect score for conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, an output schema exists to define return values, so the description need not explain them. It covers the essential aspects: listing all groups with a limit and paging. It lacks a bit of context about ordering or filtering, but for a straightforward list tool, it is sufficiently complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% since the schema has no parameter descriptions, so the description must compensate. It explains that the 'limit' parameter controls the maximum number of groups returned and mentions paging, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. This adequately covers the only parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Get all groups' with a specific verb and resource, and adds 'up to the specified limit, with paging' to clarify the scope. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_group_by_id and search_groups_by_name, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this tool is for enumerating all groups, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like search_groups_by_name for filtering or get_group_by_id for a single group. Usage context is only implied by the tool name and siblings, not articulated in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It notes 'beta endpoint', which signals potential instability, but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, error behavior, authentication requirements, or response format. The 'Get' verb implies read-only, but more context would be helpful.
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?
One concise sentence of twelve words, front-loaded with the verb and object, and no filler. Every word adds value, including the beta endpoint caveat.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with only one parameter and an output schema exists, so extensive description is not necessary. The description covers the core purpose and the 'beta' caveat, which is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool. Minor gaps around read-only confirmation and error handling are non-critical but prevent a perfect score.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only provides the parameter name 'device_id' with 0% coverage in the description. However, the description clarifies that the tool works on 'a specific Intune managed device', giving meaningful context to the device_id parameter. For a single self-explanatory parameter, this is adequate compensation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific action ('Get') and a specific resource ('applications detected on a specific Intune managed device'), which unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_managed_device_by_id or get_device_compliance_policy_states. The mention of 'beta endpoint' adds contextual specificity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving detected applications for a particular device, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives (e.g., get_managed_device_by_id for device details) or any exclusions. Context is reasonably clear but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses that this is a beta endpoint, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, with no annotations, it carries the burden of explaining side effects or prerequisites. It does not mention read-only nature, permissions, or potential pagination, though these may be inferred from the action.
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 states the essential purpose without any redundancy or wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (zero parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It could mention pagination or that it returns a collection, but the output schema likely covers the return structure. The beta endpoint note adds relevant context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameter meaning. Baseline for zero parameters is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are required.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('List all') and the resource ('Intune device categories'), making it distinct from sibling tools that focus on users, groups, devices, or policies. The '(beta endpoint)' note adds context without ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when the full list of device categories is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. Since it is a zero-parameter list tool, the intended use is fairly obvious, but there is no explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds the 'beta endpoint' warning, which is useful behavioral context, but does not disclose permissions, response expectations, or any side effects. The verb 'Get' implies read-only, but the description could be more explicit about operational constraints.
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, focused sentence with no filler. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and includes the beta endpoint caveat without unnecessary detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter GET operation with an output schema available, the description is adequate. The beta endpoint warning is relevant, and the scope is clear. It could be slightly more complete by noting how this differs from the similar compliance policy states tool, but it is not a major gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema only provides 'device_id' as a string with no description. The tool description adds that it refers to a specific Intune managed device, giving context to the parameter. However, it lacks format details or examples, and because schema coverage is 0%, the description only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get'), the resource ('configuration-profile states'), and the target scope ('specific Intune managed device'). This distinguishes it from related sibling tools like get_device_compliance_policy_states and get_device_configurations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this tool when you need the configuration-profile states for a specific managed device. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the target is self-evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get full details' implies a read-only operation, and the 'beta endpoint' note adds useful context. However, it does not disclose any potential caveats (e.g., permissions, deprecation risk), so transparency is adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. Every term ('full details', 'single', 'beta endpoint') adds value, making it a model of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple (one parameter, no nested objects) and has an output schema, so return values need not be described. The description covers the core action and endpoint status. It lacks explicit usage exclusions but is otherwise complete for a straightforward get-by-id operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It clarifies that the device is an 'Intune managed device,' adding meaning beyond the bare 'device_id' string. However, it does not explain how to obtain the ID or any format constraints, so it only partially compensates.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description uses specific verb 'Get full details' with resource 'single Intune managed device', clearly distinguishing from sibling list tools like get_all_managed_devices and get_managed_devices_by_user. The 'by_id' suffix is reinforced, making the tool's scope unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description specifies 'single' device, providing clear context that this is for fetching one device rather than a list. While it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, the singular scope is explicit and sufficient for an agent to choose this over list-oriented siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states the destructive action (remove) and the scope (from a group). While it doesn't detail edge cases like the last owner or error behavior, it transparently communicates the core operation, which is adequate for a simple mutation.
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 with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter removal operation with full schema coverage and an output schema, the description is sufficient. It lacks some context (e.g., permissions or side effects), but given the low complexity, it does not need extensive elaboration.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('group_id' and 'owner_id') having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Remove an owner from a group' uses a specific verb (remove) and identifies the resource (owner within a group). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like add_group_owner and remove_group_member by specifying the role being removed.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the simple verb-resource structure: use when you need to remove an owner from a group. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it, prerequisites (e.g., owner must exist), or alternatives, so it doesn't fully meet the criteria for a 4.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It does convey search fields and intent, but does not disclose behavior like result ordering, case sensitivity, or read-only nature. It's a minimal but not misleading description, warranting a mid-range score.
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 one short sentence, fully front-loaded, with zero redundant words. It earns its place by stating the essential action and target.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, has an output schema, and the description plus schema provide enough information for basic usage. However, it lacks guidance on choosing between this and similar user lookup tools, which would make it fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with both query and limit well-documented. The description merely repeats the schema text ('name or email'), adding no additional semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action (search) and resource (users), and specifies the search criteria (name or email). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_user_by_id (by ID) and search_groups_by_name (groups).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use this tool — when you need to find users by name or email — but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Since the context is clear and no alternatives are named, it slightly misses a 5 for lacking explicit 'when-not' guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Delete' clearly indicates a destructive operation, but it does not explicitly mention that the action is permanent, require special permissions, or describe any side effects. The action is clear but lacks additional behavioral context.
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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It immediately states the action and the target, making it efficient and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple delete operation with one parameter, the description covers the core purpose and parameter semantics. It does not explain error cases or prerequisites, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema only defines app_id as a string with no description. The description adds the semantic that app_id is the 'object ID' of the application, giving the parameter meaningful context. This compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Delete') and clearly identifies the resource ('an application (app registration)') and the method ('by its object ID'). It fully distinguishes this tool from sibling delete tools like delete_group and delete_service_principal.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: this tool deletes an application registration. The clarification 'app registration' helps differentiate it from service principals, and an agent can infer when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses paging behavior and a limit, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state that it is a read-only operation or mention permissions or error handling, though the verb 'get' largely implies safety.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose and includes only necessary additional details about limit and paging. There is no wasted wording.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential functionality: what it does, the key parameter, and an important behavioral nuance (paging). It lacks explicit mention of prerequisites or edge cases, but these are not critical for this straightforward operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% coverage from the description, but the description adds meaning by explaining that group_id is the lookup key and that limit caps results with paging. This goes beyond the bare schema definitions, though it could be more explicit about default behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get members of a group') and identifies the key input ('by group ID'), along with an important scope constraint ('up to the specified limit, with paging'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_group_by_id or get_all_groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this when you need members of a specific group, identified by group ID. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is specific enough for an agent to infer when to invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read operation without side effects, but the description does not mention authentication requirements, potential pagination, or what qualifies as 'privileged.' It is adequate but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence that states exactly what the tool does with 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.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It covers the core purpose but does not add caveats about result size or role definitions; however, the output schema likely covers return values, so this is not a significant gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to convey. Per the rubric baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters and the description adds no misleading information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
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 ('all users who are members of privileged directory roles'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_users or get_user_roles, which either search or target individual users.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly communicates the scenario for use—when you need a list of all privileged role members. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear and there is no misleading guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It indicates a read operation via 'Get' but does not disclose potential permission requirements, pagination, or what 'relevant' logs means. The output schema covers return structure, but behavioral traits like authentication needs are absent. This is a moderate gap for a sensitive resource like audit logs.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the essential purpose and key parameters. No wasted words or redundant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple retrieval tool with an output schema present, the description covers the core semantics and parameters. It lacks nuance about permissions or data volume, but these are not critical given the schema and the straightforward nature of the operation. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has no descriptions (0% coverage), but the description explains both parameters: user_id as the lookup key and days as the time window with a default of 30. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema property names, though it could be richer (e.g., allowed range for days, format of user_id).
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'directory audit logs', and the scope 'for a user by user_id' plus time window. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_user_sign_ins or get_user_mfa_status, which target different data.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context for use: retrieving audit logs for a specific user within a configurable time range. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the specificity of 'audit logs' makes the intended use obvious. No exclusions are stated, but none are needed for such a focused tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Given no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and adds key behavior: the required AuditLog.Read.All permission and the temporal scoping ('within the last N days'). It does not detail output behavior, but the output schema exists to cover that.
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?
Two concise sentences with no redundancy. The first states the core purpose, the second adds the permission requirement. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the essential context: purpose, permission, and temporal scope. The output schema handles return values, so no additional detail is required.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters (user_id and days). The description only restates the 'within the last N days' concept, adding no new semantic information. So baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the tool gets sign-in logs for a specific user within a time window, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_user_audit_logs by specifying 'sign-in logs' versus general audit logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides a clear context of use (a specific user, recent days) and the required permission, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion conditions. It is not misleading, just missing explicit when-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![entraid-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/baoduy/entraid-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/baoduy/entraid-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![entraid-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/baoduy/entraid-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/baoduy/entraid-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/baoduy/entraid-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server