Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ad_get_forest_functional_level

Retrieve the Active Directory forest functional level to verify compatibility, plan upgrades, and confirm directory configuration.

Instructions

[Domain & Domain Controllers] [READ] Consultar nivel funcional da floresta.

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_forest_functional_level"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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 disclosure burden. The '[READ]' tag does convey that this is a non-mutating lookup, but nothing is said about required permissions, whether the query targets the local domain or the entire forest, or the shape of the failure/error behavior.

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 with the category and read-only tags front-loaded, so the key information arrives immediately. It is minimally wasteful, though the domain tag is somewhat redundant with the tool-name prefix.

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 output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the operation is a simple one-parameter read. Still missing is any disambiguation from the closely named domain functional-level sibling and any note on scope (local domain vs forest-wide), which an agent would need to call this correctly.

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 the single optional correlation_id parameter, and the description says nothing about it — what it is for, whether it is required for tracing, or what format it takes. With low coverage the description should compensate, and it does not.

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: query the forest functional level. The word 'floresta' (forest) implicitly separates it from the sibling ad_get_domain_functional_level, but the description never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two, so a small inference step remains.

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 call this versus ad_get_domain_functional_level or ad_get_forest_info, and no prerequisites or context are given. The '[READ]' tag is the only usage signal, which is not enough for an agent choosing among ~100 siblings.

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

Deploy Server