Assess MFA coverage for privileged accounts in Microsoft Entra ID, identifying users lacking MFA or using weak authentication methods.
Assessment de MFA para usuários privilegiados (sem MFA ou métodos fracos).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the assessment criteria (no MFA or weak methods), but it does not reveal additional behavioral details such as whether it returns a list, a summary, or a generated report. It does not contradict the annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no unnecessary words. It conveys the target audience, the subject, and the inclusion criteria compactly. It is an efficient one-line definition.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only assessment tool, the description covers the essential scope: privileged users, MFA status, and weak-method consideration. The lack of output-schema means the return format is unspecified, but the low complexity and strong annotations keep this gap minor. It is almost complete for its simplicity.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter burden. The tool requires no arguments and the description's scope statement is sufficient. A 4 is appropriate given the zero-parameter baseline.
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 states a specific action ('assess') and resource ('privileged users' MFA') and clarifies the focus to users without MFA or with weak methods. It is clear and specific, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like list_users_without_mfa or list_users_with_weak_authentication, so it misses the top score.
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 evaluating MFA readiness among privileged users, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not mention alternatives. The context is inferable from the target population, but the tool's relationship to sibling MFA/list tools is not addressed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.