find_distribution_groupsLists distribution groups in Active Directory/LDAP, optionally scoped to a specific OU via a base DN, to complement security group searches.
List distribution groups (complement of find_security_groups).
Pass base (a DN) to scope to an OU.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| domain | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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, so safety is covered. The description adds only that base scopes to an OU; it says nothing about the default limit of 100, whether results are truncated/paginated, or what domain does, which is meaningful context the annotation cannot supply.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with purpose then the key parameter hint. Efficient, though the parenthetical could be a plain clause and the second sentence deserves a companion note on limit/domain.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the primary filter is explained. However, with 0% schema coverage the description should have covered limit and domain; an agent must guess their effect and defaults.
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% across 3 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It clarifies base is a DN and scopes to an OU, but limit and domain receive no explanation at all, leaving two-thirds of the parameters undocumented anywhere.
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 and resource ('List distribution groups') and explicitly positions it against the closest sibling ('complement of find_security_groups'). An agent can distinguish it from find_groups and find_security_groups without opening a schema.
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 complement framing with find_security_groups gives implicit routing guidance, but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not rules, and the broader alternative find_groups (all groups) is never mentioned. It also does not say when scoping by base is advisable versus omitting it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.