list_empty_groupsIdentify Active Directory/LDAP groups with no direct members for hygiene and audit reviews, optionally scoping results to a specific OU using a base DN.
List groups with no direct members (hygiene/audit).
Matches groups whose member attribute is unset. Pass base (a DN) to
scope to an OU.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| base | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| 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 safety is covered. The description adds relevant semantics annotations cannot: 'no direct members' plus 'matches groups whose member attribute is unset', telling the agent this is a literal attribute check rather than computed nested-membership emptiness.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then the matching rule, then the one parameter hint. No filler.
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 shape need not be explained, and the emptiness rule is clear. But for a 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the absence of any mention of `domain` and of how `limit` truncates results leaves real gaps for correct invocation.
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 carries the full burden, yet it explains only `base` (a DN, scoping to an OU). `limit` (default 100, pagination behavior) and `domain` (presumably domain/DC selection) are left completely undocumented in both schema and description.
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 ('List groups with no direct members') and adds the 'member attribute is unset' matching rule, which pins down what 'empty' means. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling find_empty_ous, so the sibling differentiation is implied by resource rather than stated.
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 '(hygiene/audit)' tag hints at the use case and 'Pass base (a DN) to scope to an OU' gives a concrete usage pattern. There is no explicit when-not guidance or naming of alternatives such as find_groups with a filter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.