Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ad_disable_computer

Disable an Active Directory computer account by identity to prevent further authentication and access; optionally preview the change with dry run.

Instructions

[Computers & Devices] [WRITE] Desabilitar conta de computador.

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_disable_computer"
  }
}

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

C2.4/5.0

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 says nothing about reversibility, whether the account's group memberships are affected, permission requirements, or the meaning of the supplied dry_run and confirmation_token parameters — significant gaps for a destructive write operation.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The text is short and front-loaded with bracketed tags, which is efficient. However, its brevity stems from under-specification rather than disciplined editing, so it earns a middling score.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a mutation tool with four parameters, zero schema coverage, and no annotations, the description leaves the agent without the safety and parameter context needed to invoke it responsibly.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across four parameters; the schema exposes only bare titles. The description adds no information about 'identity' format (DN, sAMAccountName, GUID?), or the role of dry_run and confirmation_token, leaving the write path entirely undocumented.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Desabilitar conta de computador') and the [WRITE]/[Computers & Devices] tags anchor the domain, making it distinguishable from siblings such as ad_enable_computer and ad_delete_computer. The only weakness is language mixing with the English sibling namespace.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus ad_enable_computer, ad_delete_computer, or ad_update_computer, and no prerequisites (e.g., domain connectivity, permissions) are given. The agent must infer usage purely from the name.

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

Deploy Server