get_password_policyRetrieve the default Active Directory domain password policy to inspect settings such as maximum password age and minimum password length.
Read the default domain password policy (maxPwdAge, minPwdLength, ...).
| 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?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the description's remaining burden is light. It adds the scope 'default domain' and example attributes but says nothing about what happens when the policy is unreadable, which domain is used, or any auth requirements.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the trailing ellipsis is slightly loose but signals that additional attributes are returned. Efficient for a simple read tool.
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 here, and annotations cover safety. The remaining gap is the optional domain parameter's default/current-domain semantics, which is unaddressed and is the main thing an agent could get wrong.
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% and the single 'domain' parameter is never mentioned in the description. Critically, it is optional with a null default, and the description does not explain that omitting it reads the current/default domain — exactly the kind of meaning the bare schema cannot convey.
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?
Specific verb + resource: 'Read the default domain password policy', with sample attributes (maxPwdAge, minPwdLength) that make the return content concrete. The word 'default' implicitly separates it from list_fine_grained_password_policies and get_password_policy_violations, though neither is named.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this reads the baseline domain policy rather than violations or FGPPs, but the description never states when to use this instead of those siblings, nor any prerequisites such as connectivity or permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.