Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ad_get_password_expiring_users

Identifies Active Directory users whose passwords expire within a specified number of days, helping administrators proactively review accounts nearing password expiration.

Instructions

[Security & Audit] [READ] Identificar senhas proximas do vencimento.

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_password_expiring_users"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No
`limit`	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

C2.7/5.0

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, yet it only self-declares [READ]. It does not explain what defines "expiring" (which AD attribute, whether it is domain-wide, whether it requires elevated rights) or any cost/performance implications of a directory-wide scan.

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?

Front-loaded and free of filler, but the brevity crosses into under-specification: a single sentence cannot carry a 3-parameter, no-annotation tool. The tags are useful; the body sentence is too thin.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. However, with zero annotation coverage and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the agent without the meaning of `days`/`limit` and without behavioral context for a security-audit scan.

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?

Three parameters with 0% schema description coverage: days, limit, and correlation_id are entirely undocumented. The phrase "proximas do vencimento" faintly implies a time window but never ties it to `days`, its default of 14, or units, and says nothing about `limit` or `correlation_id`.

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+resource ("Identificar senhas proximas do vencimento") that an agent can distinguish from the inverse sibling ad_get_password_never_expires_users. It does not name siblings explicitly, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as ad_get_password_never_expires_users, ad_get_inactive_users, or ad_generate_user_report. Only the bracketed tags [Security & Audit] [READ] hint at the usage context, leaving routing to inference.

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

Deploy Server