get_gpoRetrieve a single Group Policy Object by GUID or display name from Active Directory/LDAP; returns no result when the object is not found.
Get a single Group Policy Object by its cn (GUID) or displayName.
The GUID may be given with or without braces. Returns None if not found.
| 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?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: GUIDs may be braced or unbraced and a missing object returns None. It does not cover domain-resolution behavior or permission requirements, but the extra lookup details are meaningful.
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 the core action, followed by precise identifier details and the not-found behavior. No wasted language.
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 not be explained, and the description notes the not-found result. The main remaining completeness gap is the unexplained domain parameter and lack of sibling routing guidance.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description does compensate for the required identifier parameter by explaining that it accepts cn/GUID or displayName and that braces are optional. However, it completely omits the optional domain parameter, leaving half the parameter surface 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get a single Group Policy Object') and names the exact lookup keys, which clearly differentiates it from list_gpos and broad search tools. The scope of one object is explicit.
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 description implies the tool is used when you already have a GPO cn/GUID or displayName, but it never states when to prefer a broad search or list_gpos instead. Usage is inferable rather than explicitly guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.