Summarize MFA registration and passwordless capability for a Microsoft Entra ID tenant. Use it to audit authentication method coverage and passwordless readiness.
Resumo de registro de MFA e capacidade passwordless do tenant.
| 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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds the tenant-wide aggregation scope, but says nothing about what the summary returns, its granularity, or freshness, and there is no output schema to compensate.
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?
A single short sentence with no filler and the scope front-loaded. It is efficient, though the language mismatch with the rest of the tool surface slightly reduces clarity.
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 no-param, read-only aggregate the annotations carry the safety burden and no parameters need explaining. Still, with no output schema and no statement of what the MFA/passwordless summary contains, an agent must guess at the response shape.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema and description cannot conflict and there is no parameter semantics to document. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.
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 names a specific resource and scope: MFA enrollment plus passwordless capability at tenant level, which is clearer than a bare 'get summary'. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings such as get_authentication_strength_summary or list_users_without_mfa, and it is written in Portuguese while the tool name and sibling names are English.
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 guidance on when to call this versus the many overlapping authentication siblings (get_authentication_strength_summary, get_user_authentication_methods, list_users_without_mfa, assess_privileged_mfa). Usage is only implied by the phrase 'do tenant'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.