Lists agent identities with owner, blueprint, permissions, and risk to enable Azure security audits and risk assessment.
Lista inventário de Agent Identities com owner, blueprint, permissões e risco.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the result includes owner, blueprint, permissions, and risk, which is useful but does not explain filtering semantics or pagination behavior. This is a reasonable level of transparency given the annotations.
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 concise sentence with no filler and gets straight to the resource and fields. It is appropriately front-loaded, though it could have used the brevity to also clarify the status parameter.
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 no output schema and no parameter semantics, the description leaves important aspects of calling the tool unclear, especially the meaning of 'status'. The presence of many sibling tools also increases the need for usage context, which is absent.
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 provides no explanation of 'limit' or 'status'. While 'limit' is fairly self-explanatory from the schema, 'status' is ambiguous and no valid values or effect are described, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 identifies the specific resource ('Agent Identities') and states the fields returned (owner, blueprint, permissions, risk), making the tool's purpose reasonably clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool instead of the many sibling list/query tools, nor any mention of typical use cases or exclusions. The description only says what the tool lists; an agent must infer when it is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.