Skip to main content
Glama
Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

by nks1097

ad_get_replication_failures

Identifies Active Directory replication failures to help diagnose and resolve directory synchronization issues.

Instructions

[Replication, Health & Diagnostics] [READ] Identificar falhas de replicacao.

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_replication_failures"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serverNo
correlation_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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 repeats the read-only nature implied by the '[READ]' tag. It says nothing about whether it fans out across all domain controllers, permission requirements, or how partial/unreachable-DC results are reported.

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 the category and read tags, which is good, but the single content sentence is under-specified rather than economical. There is no waste, but also almost no information beyond the tool name.

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. However, for a diagnostics tool with two undocumented optional parameters and no annotations, the description leaves the agent guessing about scope (single DC vs. entire domain) and about behavior on DC connectivity failure.

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%, and the description mentions neither 'server' nor 'correlation_id'. The agent must infer that 'server' targets a specific DC and that 'correlation_id' is a tracing handle, with no guidance on defaults (both default to null) or whether null means 'all DCs'.

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+resource ('Identificar falhas de replicacao') prefixed by a category tag, so an agent knows this is a replication-health read. It does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as ad_get_replication_status, ad_get_replication_partners, or ad_sync_replication, which keeps it below a 5.

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 versus ad_get_replication_status or ad_sync_replication, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The '[READ]' tag faintly implies a diagnostic-only operation, but nothing tells the agent which scenario selects this tool.

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