Identify disabled Entra ID users who still have active direct role assignments, revealing lingering access for security audits.
Lista usuários desabilitados no Entra ID que ainda possuem role assignments diretos ativos.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish read-only, open-world, and idempotent behavior. The description adds the key filtering behavior (disabled users with still-active direct role assignments), which is useful context, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, or ordering. Given the strong annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.
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 focused sentence with no wasted words. It packages the resource and condition clearly and is immediately readable.
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 list operation with one optional parameter and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description is mostly sufficient. It lacks return-shape details and explicit sibling differentiation, but the absence is not critical because the tool name and schema cover the invocation basics.
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?
The only parameter 'limit' is optional and has a default in the schema, but schema description coverage is 0% and the tool descripion does not mention the parameter at all. The property name and default make misuse unlikely, yet the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lista'), a clear resource ('usuários desabilitados no Entra ID'), and a precise filter ('que ainda possuem role assignments diretos ativos'). This distinguishes it from nearby siblings like list_entra_users or list_users_with_direct_permissions because it combines disabled status with active direct role assignments.
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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. The description does not mention that this tool is for dormant/risky access discovery or how it differs from sibling tools such as list_users_with_direct_permissions or list_orphan_azure_role_assignments, so an agent cannot route between them from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.