Identify Azure AD and RBAC objects lacking an owner, including groups, applications, service principals, agents, and blueprints, to reveal orphaned resources needing assignment.
Lista objetos sem owner (Groups, Applications, Service Principals, Agents, Blueprints).
| 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, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the resource scope but does not disclose behavior such as pagination, limit handling, or whether the result set is a combined list or grouped. It does not contradict 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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and enumerates the object types with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and easily parseable by an agent.
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?
The tool is simple: one optional parameter, read-only annotations, and no output schema. The description is adequate for basic selection, but it lacks guidance on overlap with list_applications_without_owners and does not clarify output shape or pagination behavior. These gaps prevent a higher score.
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?
There is one parameter, limit, with a default of 200, and the schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not mention the limit parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the low schema coverage. The parameter name and default are self-explanatory, but 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 states a specific verb and resource: it lists objects without an owner, and explicitly enumerates the included object types (Groups, Applications, Service Principals, Agents, Blueprints). However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool list_applications_without_owners, which overlaps in scope since Applications are included here too.
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 implies when the tool might be useful (finding ownerless objects) but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose it over alternatives. Given the sibling list_applications_without_owners, the lack of differentiation is a meaningful gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.