Find curated Microsoft Learn references for any Azure topic or best-practice question. Get official guidance to answer Azure identity and RBAC queries accurately.
Return curated official Microsoft Learn references relevant to an Azure topic or best-practice question.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| topic | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that results are 'curated' and 'official', which is useful behavioral context, but it doesn't disclose rate limits, result freshness, or response structure. With annotations covering safety, a 3 is appropriate.
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, well-structured sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.
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 search tool with no output schema and minimal parameters, the description covers the core purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, result format, and when to prefer this tool over others. It is adequate but incomplete for an agent that must decide between this and sibling tools.
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%, so the schema only provides types and defaults (e.g., limit defaults to 4). The description mentions 'topic or best-practice question' but doesn't explain the expected format, constraints, or the role of the 'limit' parameter. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage, leaving both parameters ambiguous.
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 ('Return') and resource ('curated official Microsoft Learn references'), and scopes it to an 'Azure topic or best-practice question'. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling tools, which focus on identity, access, and resource data rather than documentation. The only gap is that it doesn't clarify the format of the references or the exact nature of the 'curated' set.
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 usage for topics or best-practice questions but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternative search or knowledge tools. It gives context ('official Microsoft Learn') but no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.