Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ad_set_ou_protection

Enable or disable accidental deletion protection for Active Directory organizational units, using dry-run and confirmation controls.

Instructions

[Organizational Units] [WRITE] Habilitar ou desabilitar protecao contra exclusao acidental.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "identity": "<identity>",
      "protected": "<protected>"
    },
    "name": "ad_set_ou_protection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dry_run`	No
`identity`	Yes
`protected`	Yes
`correlation_id`	No
`confirmation_token`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 1, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the effect of toggling protection. It says nothing about permission requirements, whether the change is immediately effective, or — most importantly — how the dry_run and confirmation_token parameters gate a destructive write.

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 front-loaded sentence with the category and WRITE tag up front. It is efficient, though the bracketed tag format is somewhat noisy and the terseness comes at the cost of the missing behavioral detail.

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?

For a five-parameter mutating tool with zero annotation coverage and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin; the confirmation-token and dry-run mechanics are essential context an agent needs to invoke it correctly. The output schema does relieve it of explaining return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across five parameters, and the description adds nothing beyond implying identity refers to an OU and protected is a boolean. The dry_run, correlation_id, and confirmation_token parameters are completely undocumented in both schema and description.

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 pair (enable/disable) and resource (OU accidental-deletion protection), which is clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling ad_get_ou_protection_status. It does not name that sibling, and the description is in Portuguese while the tool name and schema are English, adding friction.

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 ad_get_ou_protection_status, and no mention of required AD permissions or that the operation is reversible. Nothing indicates how dry_run or confirmation_token fit into a safe-write workflow, so the agent must infer all preconditions.

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

Deploy Server