Lists and ranks identities by largest blast radius, helping you audit Microsoft Entra ID privilege exposure and spot high-impact accounts.
Ranking de identidades por maior blast radius.
| 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 specify readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe, repeatable read operation. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the annotations provide. No information is given about what the ranking is based on, the return format, or any limits. A baseline 3 is appropriate given the annotations cover safety, but the description does not enrich behavioral transparency.
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 wasted words, and the key information (ranking, metric) is front-loaded. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
Given the simplicity (1 optional param, no output schema) the description is not complete enough: it does not explain what 'blast radius' means in this context, how identities are ranked, or what the output contains. There is no output schema, so the description should clarify the return structure, but it does not. This is a significant gap for an agent trying to interpret results.
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 schema has only one parameter ('limit') with no description (coverage 0%), so the description should compensate but does not. However, the parameter name is self-explanatory and has a default value. With only one simple parameter, the baseline is 4 per rules (0 params = 4), but here there is 1 param and 0% coverage, so a 3 reflects that the description adds no meaning and the schema is also silent.
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 action (ranking identities) and a specific metric (blast radius), which is understandable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'compute_identity_blast_radius', leaving ambiguity about which tool to use for blast radius analysis. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.
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 on when to use this tool versus the related 'compute_identity_blast_radius'. There is no indication of prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.