Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ad_get_ou

Retrieves details for a specified Organizational Unit (OU) in Active Directory, helping verify its properties and structure.

Instructions

[Organizational Units] [READ] Consultar detalhes de uma OU.

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_ou"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`identity`	Yes
`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

C2.7/5.0

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; it only contributes the '[READ]' tag, which does correctly signal a non-mutating operation. It says nothing about required permissions, what happens when the OU does not exist, or whether the lookup is scoped to a specific domain.

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 category and mode tags front-loaded, so an agent sees the operation type immediately. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity is part of the documentation gap rather than a virtue.

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 explained, but for a two-parameter lookup with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description leaves the key input format and error behavior undefined. It is not complete enough to guarantee a correct invocation.

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 neither 'identity' nor 'correlation_id' is documented anywhere. The description implies 'identity' identifies the OU but gives no hint about the accepted format (DN, GUID, name) or what correlation_id is for, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Consultar detalhes de uma OU') and the bracketed tags mark it as an Organizational Units read operation. It is distinguishable from ad_list_ous and ad_get_ou_hierarchy by the singular 'uma OU', though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this versus ad_list_ous, ad_get_ou_hierarchy, ad_get_ou_protection_status, or ad_list_ou_objects, and no prerequisites are given. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name and the word 'detalhes'.

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

Deploy Server