Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ad_delete_user

Deletes an Active Directory user account only after confirmation, supporting dry-run validation and correlation IDs for auditable administrative changes.

Instructions

[Users] [DESTRUCTIVE] Excluir conta de usuario com confirmacao.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "identity": "<identity>"
    },
    "name": "ad_delete_user"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dry_run`	No
`identity`	Yes
`correlation_id`	No
`confirmation_token`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden; it correctly flags the operation as [DESTRUCTIVE] and notes a confirmation step, which is meaningful behavioral context. However it does not disclose irreversibility, what happens to group memberships, or how dry_run and confirmation_token interact.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Very short and front-loaded with the category and DESTRUCTIVE marker, so the danger signal lands immediately. There is little waste, though the brevity contributes to the missing detail rather than being purely economical.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a destructive, 4-parameter mutation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, this one-line description is inadequate. An output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, but the safety and parameter semantics gaps are serious for an account-deletion tool.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. 'Com confirmacao' loosely maps to confirmation_token, but dry_run and correlation_id are entirely undocumented, leaving half the parameters unexplained.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a clear verb+resource: delete a user account, distinguished from siblings like ad_delete_group or ad_delete_computer by the 'Users' tag and 'usuario'. The addition 'com confirmacao' hints at the workflow, but the sentence is terse and partly in Portuguese.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this versus ad_disable_user or ad_delete_group, no prerequisites, and no explanation of the confirmation workflow. An agent must infer that a confirmation token is required from the phrase 'com confirmacao' alone.

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

Deploy Server