Find expired or soon-to-expire application secrets in Microsoft Entra ID before they cause outages. Set days threshold and limit to audit credentials needing renewal.
Lista secrets expirados ou próximos da expiração em aplicações do Entra ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | ||
| limit | No |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the expiry-scope concept ('expirados ou próximos da expiração'); it does not explain what 'próximos' means, whether results are paginated, or rate-limit behavior. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is an adequate 3.
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words; the verb and scope lead. It is efficient, though minimal enough that the missing parameter detail is a consequence of its brevity.
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 list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient in stating what is listed. But with two undocumented parameters and no explanation of the expiry window or result capping, an agent lacks the detail needed to call it precisely.
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% for both parameters. The description never mentions `days` or `limit`, so it does not explain that `days` defines the 'near expiration' window (default 30) or that `limit` caps results (default 100). With zero schema coverage, the description is expected to compensate and does not.
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 (Lista) and resource (secrets de aplicações do Entra ID) with a clear qualifier (expirados ou próximos da expiração). An agent can tell what it returns without opening the schema. However, it does not differentiate itself from any sibling or scope the result set, so it stops 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?
The description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no exclusions or alternative tools. Usage is only implied by the name. There is no sibling covering secrets expiry, so an agent has no guidance on routing or timing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.