Fetch a user's authentication methods and MFA/passwordless status in Microsoft Entra ID for identity and access audits.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope note that MFA/passwordless status is included, but says nothing about permissions, return shape, or pagination.
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 efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the resource plus returned scope are front-loaded. Nothing extraneous is present.
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 simple read-only single-user lookup with annotations covering safety, the description is adequate. However, with no output schema and a 0%-documented parameter, the identifier format and return contents remain 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?
Schema coverage is 0% and the single required parameter user_identifier has no description anywhere. The phrase 'de um usuário' implies a user reference but does not clarify whether the identifier is an email, UPN, or object ID, which is a real ambiguity for a lookup 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?
States a specific verb (retorna) and resource (métodos de autenticação), plus the scope of MFA/passwordless status for a single user. It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_authentication_methods_summary or get_authentication_strength_summary.
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 guidance on when to use this per-user lookup versus the many authentication-related siblings (get_authentication_methods_summary, list_users_without_mfa, assess_privileged_mfa). The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.