Entra Permissions MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.2.2
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a distinct and well-defined purpose: retrieving an app's full record, looking up a specific permission, searching app roles, searching application permissions, searching delegated permissions, and searching Microsoft apps. There is no functional overlap, and the descriptions clearly differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_microsoft_app, get_permission, search_app_roles, search_graph_application_permissions, search_graph_delegated_permissions, search_microsoft_apps. Naming is predictable and uniform.
Tool Count5/5
With 6 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of exploring Microsoft Entra permissions and apps. The count is neither too few nor too many, and each tool serves a clear role without redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers all major read operations for the domain: searching and retrieving both apps and permissions (application and delegated). There are no obvious gaps, as the server appears designed for read-only exploration, and the tools handle the core workflows.
Average 4/5 across 6 of 6 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 15 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return includes AppRoles but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects or limitations. Minimal behavioral context beyond the basic function.
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 a single sentence of 20 words, front-loading the purpose and including all essential elements. No redundant or unnecessary information.
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?
For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains the input (exact AppId) and output (full record with AppRoles). It could mention the output format (e.g., JSON) but is nearly complete given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The only parameter, appId, is fully described in the schema (100% coverage). The description reinforces that it is an exact GUID lookup but adds little additional meaning beyond the schema's own description. Per guidelines, baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb 'Return' and the resource 'full record for a single Microsoft first-party app', including the differentiator 'including all of its exposed AppRoles' and the lookup method 'by exact AppId (GUID)'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_microsoft_apps by specifying an exact ID lookup.
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?
The description implies usage when you have an exact AppId and need the full record, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools. Context with siblings like search_microsoft_apps suggests this is for single-record retrieval, but explicit when-not guidance is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the search fields and filter option, but fails to mention if the operation is read-only, rate limits, or pagination behavior. For a search operation, these are significant gaps.
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?
Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and resource. Efficient and clear.
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 tool is simple with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose and parameters. It could be more complete by noting that results are limited by the 'limit' parameter and that the operation is read-only, but overall it's sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining that 'query' searches across scope value, display names, and descriptions, which is more specific than the schema description. It also reinforces the 'type' filter meaning. No new info for 'limit' though.
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 clearly states the tool searches 'Microsoft Graph Delegated permissions' by keyword across scope values, display names, and descriptions. The verb 'Search' and resource are specific. The sibling 'search_graph_application_permissions' implies this is for delegated permissions, distinguishing it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the search scope and optional filtering by consent type. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like 'search_graph_application_permissions' or 'search_app_roles'. Usage context is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses search scope and permission type, but omits details on pagination, rate limits, or behavior for broad queries. Partial transparency but not comprehensive.
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?
Two concise sentences: first defines action and scope, second clarifies permission type. No wasted words; front-loaded with key info.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, description lacks return format details. Missing ordering or match type information. Adequate but not fully complete for a search tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema already describes both parameters (query, limit) clearly. Description adds value by specifying the search scope (Value, DisplayName, Description), which provides context beyond the schema's 'keyword' description.
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?
Description clearly states the tool searches Graph application permissions by keyword across Value, DisplayName, and Description. It specifies 'application permissions grant app-only access,' distinguishing it from delegated permissions tools like search_graph_delegated_permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_app_roles or search_microsoft_apps. It implies searching for application permissions but lacks exclusion criteria or context for when delegated permissions are more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that searches cover Application and/or Delegated datasets and that a scope can exist in both, returning matches from each. However, it does not clarify behavior if both value and id are provided or if neither is provided, leaving some ambiguity. No annotation contradiction.
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 concise at three sentences, front-loads the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.
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?
For a tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers most key aspects: purpose, parameter usage, and dual dataset behavior. It is missing details on output format and handling of edge cases like providing both or neither parameter, but overall it is fairly complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the dual dataset behavior and the purpose of the 'kind' parameter, which goes beyond the schema's description. It also reinforces the 'either value or id' requirement.
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 clearly states the tool does an exact lookup of a Graph permission by scope value or GUID. It distinguishes from sibling search tools by emphasizing 'exact lookup' and specifying the use of either value or id.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use the tool (for exact lookup when the value or GUID is known) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or contrast it with sibling search tools. Some guidance is provided by stating 'Provide either value or id', but more direct comparison would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must handle transparency. It discloses that the result is a summary without AppRoles, but does not mention idempotency, auth requirements, or potential mutation. For a search tool, this is adequate but not thorough.
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 two concise sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and provides a key distinction, making every sentence valuable.
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?
The description covers the return format (summary without roles), default limit (25), and the relationship with get_microsoft_app. For a simple search tool with no output schema, this is fairly complete, though it lacks pagination details.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters having descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action is to search Microsoft first-party applications by display name or AppId, and it distinguishes itself from get_microsoft_app by noting it returns a summary without AppRoles array.
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?
The description explicitly tells the agent to use get_microsoft_app for an app's roles, providing a clear alternative. However, it does not address when to use other sibling tools like search_app_roles or search_graph_permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the search scope (keyword in Value, DisplayName, Description) and output elements (AppId, AppDisplayName). It does not mention auth, rate limits, or edge cases, but for a search tool this is adequate and transparent.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and scope. Every word adds value. No fluff.
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 2 params and no output schema, the description explains output content (AppId, AppDisplayName) which is helpful. It covers essential context for a search tool but lacks details on error handling, pagination beyond limit, or no-result scenarios.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description's example for query ('EventGrid', 'Policy.Read') adds marginal value beyond the schema description. The limit parameter is not elaborated in the description, so no additional meaning beyond 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 clearly states it searches app roles by keyword across Microsoft first-party apps. It specifies the fields searched (Value, DisplayName, Description) and notes the output includes owning app's AppId and AppDisplayName. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_graph_application_permissions or search_microsoft_apps.
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?
The description implies when to use: to find which app exposes a given role. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it with alternatives like search_graph_application_permissions. It provides clear context but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![entra-id-permissions-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mjendza/entra-id-permissions-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mjendza/entra-id-permissions-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![entra-id-permissions-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mjendza/entra-id-permissions-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mjendza/entra-id-permissions-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mjendza/entra-id-permissions-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server