Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ad_get_domain_info

Retrieves detailed information about the current Active Directory domain, including domain controllers, to support directory administration and security auditing.

Instructions

[Domain & Domain Controllers] [READ] Consultar informacoes detalhadas do dominio atual.

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_domain_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`server`	No
`correlation_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

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, and all it contributes is the "[READ]" marker signalling a non-mutating call. It says nothing about required directory permissions, which domain controller answers when no server is given, or latency/authorization behavior for a domain-info query.

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?

A single short sentence front-loaded with category and read tags, with no filler. It is efficiently sized, though the tags consume most of the space that could have carried the actual information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (zero required params) and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, with no annotations, no parameter documentation, and roughly 15 domain-info siblings, the description leaves an agent unable to predict what this returns or how it differs from adjacent readers.

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 optional parameters. The description never explains what 'server' means (presumably the DC to target) or what 'correlation_id' is used for, so an agent learns nothing beyond the bare field names.

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 and resource ("Consultar informacoes detalhadas do dominio atual") and scopes it to the current domain, which separates it from ad_list_domains. It does not, however, distinguish it from the many other domain-scoped readers such as ad_get_forest_info, ad_get_domain_functional_level, or ad_get_domain_trusts.

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 bracketed tags "[Domain & Domain Controllers] [READ]" imply a read context, but there is no statement of when to pick this over ad_get_forest_info or the more specific domain readers. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.

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

Deploy Server