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

Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

by nks1097
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

ad_get_directory_health

Run Active Directory health checks to detect replication, service, and diagnostic issues before they impact directory availability.

Instructions

[Replication, Health & Diagnostics] [READ] Executar verificacoes de saude do Active Directory.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "ad_get_directory_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serverNo
correlation_idNo

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, and the description only adds the informal '[READ]' tag. It does not disclose which health checks are performed, what permissions are required, whether the operation targets a specific domain controller or the whole directory, or any behavioral constraints beyond the one-word category label.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with category and read-only tags. It is concise, but the tag prefix and undefined 'health checks' phrase reduce clarity slightly.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a broad diagnostic tool with no annotations, two undocumented parameters, and many sibling health tools, the description is drastically under-specified. Although an output schema exists, the agent still lacks essential context about what the tool checks and how to target it.

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% for both parameters. The description does not explain the meaning or expected format of 'server' or 'correlation_id', leaving the agent to infer these from parameter names alone.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb and resource ('Executar verificacoes de saude do Active Directory'), but 'health checks' is broad and undefined. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling diagnostic tools such as ad_get_replication_status, ad_get_dc_services_status, or ad_generate_domain_health_report.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling health and diagnostic tools, an agent cannot infer whether this is a broad health sweep or a specific check, nor what prerequisites or scope apply.

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