mcp-activedirectory

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 adds useful context about the data sources (on-prem AD and Azure AD) and what details are included (member count), but it does not cover other behavioral aspects such as error handling, authentication requirements, or rate limits. The description is accurate but lacks comprehensive behavioral traits.

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

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

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage guidelines without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by necessary contextual details, making it highly concise and effective.

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

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and usage context adequately. However, it lacks details on return values (e.g., what 'full details' includes beyond member count) and behavioral aspects like error cases, which would enhance completeness for an agent.

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

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds semantic context by explaining the meaning of 'identifier' in terms of different sources (CN/sAMAccountName for AD, display name/object ID for Azure AD), which enhances understanding beyond the schema. However, it does not provide additional details for the 'source' parameter beyond what the schema enum states.

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

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

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full details of a specific group including member count', making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'list_groups' (which lists multiple groups) and 'get_group_members' (which focuses on members rather than group details), providing clear differentiation.

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

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

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool by specifying the identifier format for different sources (on-prem AD vs. Azure AD), which helps in selecting the correct parameter values. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'list_groups' for browsing or 'search_groups' for filtering, leaving some context implied rather than fully articulated.

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