Fetches a specific cataloged object by capability ID and object ID for read-only Microsoft Entra ID and Azure RBAC auditing, with optional field selection.
Obtém um objeto específico de uma capability catalogada (operação 'get').
'id' deve ser um GUID ou identificador simples; valores fora desse padrão são rejeitados.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| select | No | ||
| capability_id | 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 one genuine behavioral fact beyond them: 'id' must be a GUID or simple identifier and non-conforming values are rejected. It does not disclose error behavior for unknown capability_id or what the response contains.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the operation's purpose followed by the id constraint. No filler, though the parenthetical '(operação get)' is redundant with the tool name.
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?
With 3 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and a vague 'capability catalogada' concept, the agent lacks the context to call this correctly: it cannot know what capability_id values are valid, what select does, or what shape of object comes back.
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% across 3 parameters, so the description carries the burden. It clarifies only 'id' (accepts GUID or simple identifier, rejects other formats) and says nothing about the required 'capability_id' or the optional 'select' projection parameter.
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 clear verb ('obtém') and resource ('um objeto específico de uma capability catalogada'), and the parenthetical '(operação get)' signals it is the read of a single item, implying a list sibling. However, 'capability catalogada' is never defined, so an agent cannot tell what kinds of objects this actually returns versus graph_list, graph_query, or graph_directory_objects.
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 versus the many sibling retrieval tools (graph_list, graph_query, graph_relationship, graph_permissions, graph_role_assignments). The only constraint given is a format rule for 'id', which is a precondition rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.