Skip to main content
Glama
josimarh

azure-mcp-pilot

by josimarh
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

graph_discover_capabilities

Read-onlyIdempotent

Discover which Azure identity or RBAC domain and endpoint answers a question, or list cataloged capabilities by domain or source before querying.

Instructions

Capability discovery de identidade.

Use ANTES de consultar quando não souber qual domínio/endpoint atende a pergunta.

  • Se 'question' for informado, retorna o roteamento sugerido (domínio, capability, fonte, permissões necessárias) SEM executar nada.

  • Se 'domain'/'source' forem informados, lista as capacidades catalogadas.

Fontes possíveis: microsoft_graph (identidade/diretório), azure_resource_graph / azure_management / azure_authorization (recursos e Azure RBAC).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainNo
sourceNo
questionNo
include_gapsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds useful context beyond that: a question returns routing and permissions without executing anything, and it enumerates possible sources for discovery.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with purpose, then usage, then mode behavior and possible sources in compact bullets. Every line contributes and there is no filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-output-schema, optional-parameter routing/discovery tool, the description covers the main modes and source types adequately. The only notable gap is the unexplained include_gaps parameter, but an agent can still call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains question, domain, and source well, but include_gaps is never mentioned, leaving one of four parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States it is a capability-discovery tool for identity and explains the two modes: question → routing suggestion, domain/source → catalog listing. It is clear enough to distinguish from action-oriented siblings like graph_query or list_users, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says to use it BEFORE consulting when the domain/endpoint is unknown, and explains which input triggers which mode. No when-not condition or named alternative is provided, but the usage context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools