Retrieve Microsoft Entra ID users visible to the authenticated identity, with filters for name, disabled status, and result limit. Supports read-only identity auditing in VS Code Copilot Chat.
Lista usuários do Entra ID visíveis para a identidade autenticada.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| disabled_only | No | ||
| name_contains | 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, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping constraint that results are limited to what the authenticated identity can see, which is real behavioral context. It does not cover pagination, return shape, or rate 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?
One short sentence with no waste and the scope constraint front-loaded. Efficient, though very minimal for a tool with undocumented parameters.
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?
No output schema and zero schema description coverage means the description must carry more weight. It omits filter semantics, whether any filters are mutually exclusive, pagination behavior, and how it differs from sibling user-listing tools. It is under-specified for the surrounding tool set.
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 all three parameters (limit, disabled_only, name_contains), and the description says nothing about them. With low coverage the description is supposed to compensate, but it does not mention filters, defaults, or pagination behavior at all.
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 (usuários do Entra ID), which is clear. However, it overlaps heavily with siblings list_entra_users and list_users_with_direct_permissions, and the description does not differentiate this tool from those alternatives.
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?
Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions that would select this tool over list_entra_users or the other user-listing siblings. The scope phrase 'visíveis para a identidade autenticada' is the only contextual hint, but it is not framed as usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.