Identify privileged accounts lacking MFA or using weak methods. This read-only assessment helps secure Entra ID identities.
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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds the assessed population and condition (privileged users without MFA or weak methods), but does not describe output, auth requirements, or rate limits beyond that.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase contributes to defining the assessment's scope.
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 with no output schema, the description identifies the target population and assessment focus but does not say what the assessment returns or how it relates to overlapping authentication sibling tools. It is minimally adequate but leaves the agent to infer the output form.
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?
Zero parameters, so per the rubric baseline is 4; the empty schema means there are no parameter semantics to document and the description appropriately does not introduce any.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (MFA assessment) and scopes it to privileged users with no MFA or weak methods, which distinguishes it from broader authentication siblings. However, it does not name an alternative tool, so it stops short of full sibling 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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named among overlapping siblings like list_users_without_mfa or list_users_with_weak_authentication. Usage must be inferred from the scope phrase.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.