Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

by nks1097
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

ad_enable_computer

Enable a disabled Active Directory computer account by specifying its identity, restoring access for device authentication and domain operations.

Instructions

[Computers & Devices] [WRITE] Habilitar 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_enable_computer"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dry_runNo
identityYes
correlation_idNo
confirmation_tokenNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only marks the operation as a [WRITE] task; it provides no details about the effects of complex parameters like dry_run, correlation_id, or confirmation_token.

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?

The description is highly concise, using categories and action prefixes efficiently. It uses minimal words while conveying the primary function.

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?

Given that the tool has 4 input parameters (including optional flags and IDs) and no annotations, the description is severely lacking in context. It should at least warn the user that complex parameters like correlation_id exist.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the description must define the parameters. It fails to provide any explanation for the four input parameters (identity, dry_run, correlation_id, confirmation_token), adding no semantic value beyond the title.

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 is clear by specifying the target resource ([Computers & Devices]) and the action ([WRITE] Habilitar conta de computador). The categorization helps an agent identify the domain of the tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, such as ad_disable_computer. It is a simple declaration of function without providing operational context or necessity.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools