get_domain_infoRetrieves Active Directory domain security settings and audit metadata so you can inspect domain-level configuration during read-only LDAP audits.
Read the domain object: security-relevant settings and metadata (audit).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
The description's 'Read' is consistent with readOnlyHint=true and adds that the payload is security-relevant settings plus metadata. Beyond that it conveys no behavioral detail such as whether omitting the domain falls back to the connected domain, or any access requirements. An output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is not required.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first. It is efficient, though so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than optimal denseness.
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?
The output schema and readOnly annotation cover return shape and safety, and the description conveys the tool's scope. The unresolved piece is the domain parameter's default behavior, which an agent needs in order to call it correctly.
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?
The single parameter 'domain' has a null default and 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place semantics could be supplied — yet it says nothing about what value to pass or that omitting it targets the current/default domain. This is a clear documentation gap for the sole parameter.
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 ('Read the domain object') and adds content hints ('security-relevant settings and metadata'), so an agent knows this returns domain-level configuration, not users or OUs. It does not explicitly differentiate from nearby siblings like get_password_policy or list_domain_controllers, leaving the agent to infer the broader scope.
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 parenthetical '(audit)' implies an audit/compliance use case, which is a weak but real contextual cue. There is no statement of when to prefer this over get_password_policy, list_trusts, or list_domain_controllers, and no prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.