Skip to main content
Glama
Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

by nks1097

ad_enable_user

Enables a disabled Active Directory user account by identity, with optional dry-run and confirmation controls.

Instructions

[Users] [WRITE] Habilitar conta de usuario.

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_user"
  }
}

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
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. The [WRITE] tag signals mutation, but the description never states that the tool likely requires a confirmation token for safety, what dry_run does, whether the operation is reversible, or what permissions are needed. For a state-changing account operation this is a significant gap.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with no filler, but that brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than efficiency — the single sentence does not earn its place by conveying enough to act on.

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 described. However, for a write operation with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description should at minimum explain the dry_run/confirmation_token workflow and identity format; those omissions leave an agent unable to call it safely.

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 4 parameters, and the description explains none of them. The critical safety parameters dry_run and confirmation_token are completely undocumented anywhere, and identity's expected format (DN, UPN, sAMAccountName) is not stated.

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 specific verb+resource ('Habilitar conta de usuario' = enable user account) and tags it [Users][WRITE], which cleanly separates it from sibling ad_disable_user. It lacks any scope detail (single account vs. bulk) but the core action is unambiguous.

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 enable an account versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., account must currently be disabled), and no explanation of when to set dry_run or supply confirmation_token. The agent must infer usage entirely 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

Other Tools