Fetch a specific Microsoft Entra ID or Azure RBAC object from a cataloged capability by its ID, enabling targeted read-only audits of identities, roles, and privilege details.
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 mark the tool readOnlyH/readOnly and idempotent, and the description adds useful behavioral context: 'id' must be a GUID or simple identifier and values outside that pattern are rejected. This is a concrete validation behavior beyond the structured annotations. It does not discuss errors, auth, or return format, but the annotations cover the safety profile.
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 short and front-loaded: first sentence gives purpose, second sentence gives a validation rule. The parenthetical '(operação get)' is somewhat redundant with the tool name, but overall there is no meaningful bloat.
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 parameters, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is not complete enough. It fails to explain what capability_id represents, what select does, what a cataloged capability is, or how to discover valid capability IDs. An agent would need to infer too much to invoke this tool reliably.
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%, and the description only clarifies the format of 'id'. The required 'capability_id' and the optional 'select' parameter are left completely unexplained, so the description does not compensate for the schema's lack of parameter documentation.
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 states a clear action ('obtém') and resource ('objeto específico de uma capability catalogada'), and the word 'específico' signals single-object retrieval as opposed to listing. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like graph_list or graph_query, relying mostly on the operation label 'get' to differentiate.
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?
Usage is implied: use this tool when you want a specific object from a cataloged capability. There is no explicit statement of when to use it versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no reference to graph_discover_capabilities for finding capability IDs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.