is_memberChecks whether a user belongs to an Active Directory/LDAP group, including nested membership, and returns true or false for access checks.
Return True if the user is a (nested) member of the group.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| user | Yes | ||
| group | 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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail by stating that nested membership is considered, not just direct membership. However, it does not discuss edge cases such as nonexistent users/groups or domain-scoped lookup behavior.
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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the return condition and the key nested-membership qualifier immediately. Brevity is appropriate for a simple boolean-check 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 and annotations cover read-only safety, so the description need not explain the return value format. However, the optional domain parameter is undocumented everywhere, and the description gives no sibling-routing guidance for group_members versus user_groups. For a simple tool this is adequate but not complete.
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 compensate for undocumented parameters. It implicitly identifies the user and group inputs but adds no meaning beyond their names, and it completely omits the optional domain parameter. With three parameters and no schema descriptions, this leaves a meaningful semantic gap.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it returns True if a user is a member of a group. It also adds the important qualifier '(nested)', which distinguishes this membership test from simply listing direct memberships. The boolean-return purpose is clear enough to separate it from siblings like group_members and user_groups.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of group_members, user_groups, or get_group. It implies a membership check but does not state alternatives, prerequisites, or whether it should be used for direct versus nested membership queries. The agent must infer usage from the name and one-sentence description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.