get_computerRetrieve a single Active Directory computer by exact sAMAccountName, CN, or DNS host name to resolve its AD record; optionally provide a domain for the query.
Get a single AD computer by sAMAccountName, cn or dNSHostName (exact match).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | No | ||
| identifier | Yes |
| 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already tells the agent this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavior: lookup is exact-match only, not a fuzzy search. It does not mention error behavior, missing-object behavior, or domain scoping, but with annotations covering safety this is a moderate rather than severe gap.
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 definition is a single compact sentence with no filler. The key lookup semantics and accepted identifier formats are front-loaded.
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?
This is a simple read tool with an output schema, so return values need not be explained. Still, the optional domain parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, and there is no guidance on exact-match failure or domain selection.
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 description must carry parameter meaning. It does clarify the required identifier parameter by listing sAMAccountName, cn, and dNSHostName and noting exact match, which is genuinely useful. However, it completely ignores the optional domain parameter, leaving half the parameters undocumented.
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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieve a single AD computer. It also specifies the supported attributes and exact-match semantics, which distinguishes this single-object getter from sibling find_computers or broader search tools.
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 wording strongly implies use when looking up one exact computer, and the contrast with find_computers is inferable from 'single' and 'exact match'. However, it never explicitly says when to prefer this over find_computers or what to do if no exact match exists.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.