List Microsoft Entra ID users and return name, UPN, and email for identity audits. Use limit to control result count.
Lista usuários do Microsoft Entra ID com nome, UPN e e-mail.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific returned attributes (nome, UPN, e-mail), which is useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations, but does not mention pagination or default limits.
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 waste. It states verb, resource, and returned fields efficiently.
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 annotations covering safety, the description is adequate but incomplete: no pagination/limit semantics and no differentiation from the many sibling user-listing tools leave context gaps.
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 the single 'limit' parameter. The description provides no information about the limit parameter, its default, or pagination behavior, so it fails to 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?
Clear verb 'Lista' and resource 'usuários do Microsoft Entra ID', with the returned fields (nome, UPN, e-mail) specified. It does not differentiate itself from the many sibling user-listing tools (list_users, list_azure_role_assignments, etc.), 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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative tools are named. With many sibling list_* user tools, an agent gets no routing guidance at all.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.