Retrieve a user's authentication methods and MFA/passwordless status to assess account security and enforce conditional access policies.
Retorna métodos de autenticação e status de MFA/passwordless de um usuário.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user_identifier | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds specificity about the returned data without contradicting the annotations, so it is transparent but relies on annotations for side-effect disclosure.
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, grammatically correct sentence with no unnecessary words, making it concise and well-structured.
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?
While the tool is simple and the description states its core function, it does not indicate the output format or any limitations, leaving the agent to infer the response structure. However, given the lack of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate but could be more complete.
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 parameter user_identifier is only described by its name and type, with no explanation of the expected format (e.g., UPN, object ID, email). The description's phrase 'de um usuário' confirms it refers to a user but does not clarify the identifier convention.
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 clearly states that the tool returns authentication methods and MFA/passwordless status for a specific user, using the verb 'Retorna' (Returns). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_users_without_mfa because it is user-specific.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_authentication_methods_summary or assess_privileged_mfa. It does not mention prerequisites or compare with other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.