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_domain_controller_info

Retrieves details for a specified Active Directory domain controller so agents can inspect its configuration and status for administration, auditing, or troubleshooting.

Instructions

[Domain & Domain Controllers] [READ] Consultar detalhes de um DC.

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_get_domain_controller_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
identityYes
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, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only adds the '[READ]' tag to signal a non-mutating operation. It does not mention required permissions, what happens with an invalid identity, or any rate/behavioral traits beyond that single label.

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?

It is short and front-loaded with category and read-only tags, which is efficient. However, the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision — one sentence cannot carry this tool's needed context.

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. But for a tool with 0% parameter documentation and no annotations, the description leaves the agent with too little to construct a correct 'identity' value or understand scope.

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%, so the description needed to explain the parameters and does not. The required 'identity' parameter and optional 'correlation_id' are left entirely undefined — no hint whether identity is a name, DN, GUID, or IP.

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 gives a verb ('Consultar'/'query') and a resource ('DC'/domain controller), so the intent is legible. But it is minimal and does not differentiate this tool from close siblings like ad_list_domain_controllers, ad_get_domain_info, or ad_get_dc_services_status.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., the list variant or the domain-info variant), and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. 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

Other Tools