mcpAD

Locked Users

locked_users

Read-only

Lists all locked-out Active Directory user accounts for audit checks, letting you scope results by OU (base DN) or add an extra LDAP filter.

Instructions

List locked-out user accounts (lockoutTime >= 1).

Audit counterpart of is_locked: returns every locked account instead of checking a single user. Pass base (a DN) to scope to an OU, or extra_filter to AND an extra raw LDAP clause (must be pre-escaped).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`base`	No
`limit`	No
`domain`	No
`extra_filter`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already mark this as read-only, and the description adds useful behavior beyond that: the exact lockout criterion, that it returns every locked account, and that `extra_filter` is ANDed as a raw LDAP clause requiring pre-escaping. It omits any discussion of limit/pagination behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first sentence, followed immediately by sibling differentiation and the most important parameter behavior. Every sentence contributes directly to correct invocation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description is nearly complete for a read-only listing tool. It covers the complex filter semantics and the key sibling relationship, but does not explain `limit` or `domain`, which are potentially important when auditing large directories.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It meaningfully explains `base` as a DN scoping an OU and `extra_filter` as a pre-escaped raw LDAP AND clause, but leaves `limit` and `domain` completely undocumented despite both being present in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("List locked-out user accounts") and even gives the concrete LDAP criterion ("lockoutTime >= 1"). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `is_locked`, making the intended scope unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It clearly contrasts this audit-style listing with the single-user check provided by `is_locked`, and explains how to narrow results using `base` or `extra_filter`. It does not mention exclusions or when one scoping option is preferable, but the primary selection guidance is present.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server