Compare Microsoft Entra PIM assignment states (Active, Eligible, Permanent) to audit privileged role standing and identify stale permanent access.
Retorna comparativo de estados PIM (Active vs Eligible vs Permanent).
| 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, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result is a comparative/aggregate rather than raw state rows, but says nothing about scope (tenant-wide?), which states are counted, or how the comparison is computed.
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, front-loading the verb and the comparison dimensions. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably under-specified rather than concise.
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 aggregation with no output schema, the description should say what the comparison contains (counts per state? breakdown by role?) and its scope. It leaves the return shape entirely unspecified.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource: a comparative summary of PIM states across Active/Eligible/Permanent. It implies an aggregate view, distinguishing it somewhat from the sibling list_pim_role_states, though it never explicitly contrasts them.
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 statement of when to use this versus list_pim_role_states or pim_natural_language_query. The agent must infer usage from the word 'comparativo' alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.