mcp-freeipa

add_user_to_group

Add one or more users to a FreeIPA group by providing the group common name and UID(s). Solves group membership assignment in FreeIPA/IdM administration.

Instructions

Add one or more users to a FreeIPA group.

Tool call template

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

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "group_cn": "<group_cn>",
      "uid": "<uid>"
    },
    "name": "add_user_to_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uid`	Yes	UID or list of UIDs to add to the group
`group_cn`	Yes	The common name (cn) of the group

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

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 says 'Add one or more users', but does not explain whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if a user already belongs to the group, what permissions are required, or what the response contains. This is a mutation with unstated side effects.

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. Every term carries operational meaning: 'Add', 'one or more users', 'FreeIPA group'. It is concise without sacrificing clarity.

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 two fully documented parameters and no output schema. The description is adequate for understanding the core operation, but it omits usage guidance, behavioral edge cases, and return behavior, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent assessing how to call and interpret the result.

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 both 'uid' and 'group_cn' are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only the phrase 'one or more', which the schema already expresses through the anyOf string/array type for 'uid'. No meaningful additional parameter semantics are provided.

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 verb 'Add', the object 'one or more users', and the target 'a FreeIPA group'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like remove_user_from_group (removal) and add_user (creating a new user account).

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. However, the verb 'Add' and the resource 'FreeIPA group' imply the use case of group membership addition, which gives some guidance but left implicit.

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