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

Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

by nks1097
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

ad_list_domain_controllers

Lists domain controllers in Active Directory so you can inventory directory servers and verify domain topology for audits or diagnostics.

Instructions

[Domain & Domain Controllers] [READ] Listar controladores de dominio.

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_list_domain_controllers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
correlation_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The [READ] tag usefully signals a non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about scope (current domain vs forest), permissions required, or volume of results. Given an output schema exists, return-shape disclosure is not required, so a 3 is fair.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The bracketed category/READ tags are mildly noisy but do convey useful routing metadata.

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, and the [READ] tag conveys safety. But for a listing tool the agent still lacks scope information (all DCs in domain? forest-wide?) and any hint about the optional correlation_id, leaving clear gaps.

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?

One parameter (correlation_id) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. The parameter name is fairly self-evident as a tracing identifier, but the description does not compensate for the coverage gap as required.

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 and resource ('Listar controladores de dominio'), which is distinguishable from siblings like ad_get_domain_controller_info (singular detail) and ad_list_domains (domains, not controllers). However, it does not explicitly name or differentiate against those siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as ad_get_domain_controller_info or ad_test_domain_controller. The only hint is the [Domain & Domain Controllers] / [READ] tag grouping.

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