find_must_change_passwordLocate enabled Active Directory users required to change their password at next logon, optionally scoped to a specific OU or domain.
Find enabled users who must change their password at next logon.
Matches pwdLastSet=0, excluding disabled accounts. 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 genuinely useful behavioral detail by disclosing the exact result-set definition (pwdLastSet=0, disabled accounts excluded). It stops short of noting the default result cap or what a broad unscoped search costs, so not a 5.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the matching rule, then the scoping parameter. No filler and nothing redundant with the schema.
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 tool is a read-only query with no destructive risk. However, an agent still lacks the meaning of `limit` and `domain` and any indication that results are capped at 100 by default — material gaps for a search tool that can be scoped.
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 three parameters, so the description carries the full burden — yet it only explains `base` (a DN), omitting any meaning for `limit` (default 100) or `domain`. The one parameter it does explain is handled well, but two thirds of the signature remains undocumented in both places.
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?
Names a specific verb and resource ('Find enabled users who must change their password at next logon') and pins the exact LDAP predicate (pwdLastSet=0, excluding disabled accounts). This makes it readily distinguishable from nearby siblings such as never_expires_password, password_not_required, and expired_accounts.
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?
It gives one concrete usage hint — pass `base` (a DN) to scope to an OU — which implies the default searches the whole domain. But it states no when-not conditions, no alternatives to use instead, and no guidance on when to leave `base` or `domain` unset, leaving selection largely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.