mcp-activedirectory

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. It mentions 'optional name filter' which hints at functionality, but doesn't describe what data is returned (e.g., group attributes), whether results are paginated, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with three parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that immediately conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and includes the key optional feature (name filtering). Every element serves a purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (group objects with which attributes?), doesn't mention authentication or permission requirements for accessing AD/Azure AD data, and provides no error handling context. The agent would need to guess about the output format and operational constraints.

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 fully documents all three parameters (filter, max_results, source) with descriptions and defaults. The description adds marginal value by mentioning 'optional name filter' which aligns with the 'filter' parameter, but doesn't provide additional context beyond what's already in the structured schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 action ('List') and resource ('Active Directory or Azure AD groups'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_group' (singular retrieval) and 'search_groups' (more comprehensive searching) by focusing on listing with optional filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list_users' or 'list_computers' beyond the resource type.

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 implies usage for retrieving multiple groups with basic filtering, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'search_groups' (which might offer more advanced search capabilities) or 'get_group' (for single group details). No guidance is provided about prerequisites, authentication needs, or performance considerations, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool name and parameters alone.

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