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_stale_computers

Identify inactive Active Directory computers over a specified period to support cleanup, security auditing, and device inventory review.

Instructions

[Computers & Devices] [READ] Identificar computadores inativos ha determinado periodo.

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_stale_computers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
daysNo
limitNo
correlation_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

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 behavioral burden. It does signal '[READ]' and a period-based filter, but it does not disclose domain scope, permissions, pagination/limit behavior, ordering, or what 'inactive' means beyond the period parameter.

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?

The description is one short sentence plus category tags, with no wasted text and the read-only nature front-loaded. It is efficient, though very terse for a tool with undocumented parameters.

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. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description should provide more operational context for the three parameters and stale-computer scope; it currently leaves too much to inference.

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 all three parameters lack schema descriptions. The description implies the 'days' concept via 'determinado periodo', but it does not explain the default of 90 days, the limit default of 100, or the purpose of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: identify inactive computers. The phrase 'ha determinado periodo' adds a temporal scope that distinguishes it from generic computer listing/searching tools. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the stale-computer concept is clear.

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?

The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is for stale-computer auditing rather than using ad_list_computers, ad_search_computers, or ad_get_computer.

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