Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

by nks1097
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

ad_get_replication_partners

Lists Active Directory replication partners for a domain controller to diagnose replication health and topology issues.

Instructions

[Replication, Health & Diagnostics] [READ] Listar parceiros 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_partners"
  }
}

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 offers a '[READ]' marker. It does not say whether results are scoped to a specific domain controller, whether 'server' targets the queried DC or a partner, or what happens when server is omitted.

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 a single short sentence with no wasted words, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy. The category and read-only tags are front-loaded, which is the only structural strength.

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 described, but with zero annotations, zero parameter documentation, and no usage context, the definition leaves an agent unable to tell how to invoke it correctly against the many replication-related siblings.

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 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. Neither 'server' (presumably the DC to query) nor 'correlation_id' is explained anywhere in the description text.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Listar parceiros de replicacao' = list replication partners), which is enough to know what the tool returns. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as ad_get_replication_status or ad_get_replication_failures, and the category tag is the only disambiguation aid.

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 tool versus the other replication/diagnostics tools, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The '[Replication, Health & Diagnostics]' tag implies a domain but gives no decision criteria.

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