Track privilege changes over time for a specific identity via UPN, name, or objectId, helping audit role assignments and PIM activity in Microsoft Entra ID.
Retorna timeline de privilégios para uma identidade específica (UPN, nome ou objectId).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| identity_identifier | Yes |
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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: nothing about default time windows, result volume, pagination, or what a 'timeline' entry contains. With annotations doing all the work, the description contributes essentially nothing here.
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 compact sentence with no filler and the core action front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity is partly the problem rather than the virtue.
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 3-parameter tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits the meaning of the days/limit defaults and gives no sense of what the returned timeline looks like, so an agent cannot fully predict the call's behavior.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it partially does by explaining that identity_identifier accepts a UPN, a name, or an objectId — genuinely useful since the schema only says 'string'. However, the days (default 90) and limit (default 200) parameters are never explained, so half the parameter surface remains undocumented.
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 verb and resource: it returns a privilege timeline scoped to one identity. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as list_privilege_timeline_events, summarize_privilege_timeline, or timeline_natural_language_query, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the many timeline-related siblings (list_privilege_timeline_events, summarize_privilege_timeline, export_privilege_timeline_report, timeline_natural_language_query). Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.