Horizon MCP Server

set_pool_entitlements

Destructive

Add, replace, or remove user and group entitlements for Horizon desktop or application pools. Replace overwrites existing access; remove revokes it immediately.

Instructions

Add, replace, or remove entitlements for a desktop or application pool.

CAUTION: action='replace' removes any existing entitlements not in the provided list. CAUTION: action='remove' immediately revokes access for the specified principals. Always confirm with the user before using replace or remove.

NOTE: action='replace' is only supported for desktop pools — the Horizon API has no bulk-replace endpoint for application pools.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`action`	Yes	add: merge with existing entitlements. replace: overwrite all existing entitlements with this list. remove: revoke access for the specified users/groups.
`confirm`	No	Only used when the server runs with HORIZON_CONFIRMATION=flag (clients without elicitation). Otherwise the user is asked to confirm directly in the client.
`pool_id`	Yes	Pool ID to modify entitlements for
`pool_type`	Yes	Type of pool
`ad_user_or_group_ids`	Yes	AD user or group IDs. Use search_ad_users_or_groups to find IDs.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.0Sep 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / confirm

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "Only used when the server runs with HORIZON_CONFIRMATION=flag (clients without elicitation). Otherwise the user is asked to confirm directly in the client.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it spells out exactly what replace destroys (entitlements not in the list), that remove immediately revokes access, the mandatory user-confirmation step, and an API-level limitation on replace for application pools. This is precisely the extra context annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence front-loads the purpose, followed by two scoped cautions and one limitation note. Every sentence earns its place; no restatement of the tool name or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive mutation tool, the description covers destruction semantics, confirmation requirements, and API constraints, while annotations handle the safety profile and an output schema exists to describe returns. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds a genuine constraint absent from the schema: the interaction between action='replace' and pool_type (desktop-only). That cross-parameter rule meaningfully enriches parameter semantics beyond the field descriptions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb set (add/replace/remove) against a named resource (entitlements for a desktop or application pool), which distinguishes it immediately from read-only siblings like list_pool_entitlements and get_pool_entitlement. An agent can tell what the tool does without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear behavioral guidance for each action mode and adds two decisive constraints: confirm before replace/remove, and replace is unsupported for application pools. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives (e.g., list_pool_entitlements, search_ad_users_or_groups) that would round out tool-level routing, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server