is_disabledCheck whether an Active Directory or LDAP user account is disabled; returns True for disabled accounts and None when the user is not found.
Return True if the account is disabled, None if the user is not found.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | ||
| 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 the safety profile is covered. The description does add real behavioral value by specifying the None result when the user is not found, which is a non-obvious edge case. It stays silent on authentication/domain resolution behavior, which matters for a directory lookup.
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 zero padding. The return-value contract and the not-found case are stated first, which is exactly what an agent needs before calling.
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 covers the value contract, and the not-found case is disclosed. Still missing: how the domain parameter is resolved, and what distinguishes this from is_locked or disabled_users — gaps that matter in a 40+ sibling toolset.
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 the burden for both parameters. It implicitly maps to the user parameter, but the domain parameter (nullable, default null) is never mentioned, leaving the agent to guess whether null means the connected domain.
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-like check and resource: returns True if the account is disabled. An agent can tell it is a single-account predicate, distinct from the list-oriented disabled_users sibling. However, it never names the closer alternative is_locked, so differentiation is only partially achieved.
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?
No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The sibling set contains obvious near-duplicates (disabled_users, is_locked, never_expiring_accounts), yet the description makes no attempt to route between them; usage must be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.