Skip to main content
Glama
Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

by nks1097

ad_test_kerberos_connectivity

Tests Kerberos connectivity and functionality against an Active Directory server to diagnose authentication issues.

Instructions

[DNS & Infrastructure] [READ] Verificar conectividade e funcionamento do Kerberos.

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_test_kerberos_connectivity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
serverNo
correlation_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
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 burden and it delivers very little: it does not say what a passing versus failing result means, whether it contacts a DC or uses the local machine's ticket cache, what credentials it relies on, or how long it may block. The manually prepended [READ] tag is the only hint about behavior, and informal tags are a weak substitute for structured annotations.

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 no filler; the bracketed category tags cost a little space but aid routing. Nothing is wasted, though nothing is elaborated either.

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?

This is a diagnostic test with no annotations, two undocumented parameters, and a description written in Portuguese inside an otherwise English toolset. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description omits scope, prerequisites, and how to interpret the result.

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 parameter. An agent gets no guidance on whether 'server' expects a hostname, FQDN, domain controller name, or whether null defaults to the current domain, nor what 'correlation_id' is for.

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 names a specific verb and resource: verify Kerberos connectivity and functioning, tagged [DNS & Infrastructure] [READ]. It is clearly a diagnostic test, distinguishable from data-retrieval siblings, though it does not name the sibling tests (ad_test_ldap_connectivity, ad_test_secure_channel) it parallels.

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 run this test versus alternatives such as ad_test_secure_channel, ad_test_ldap_connectivity, or ad_get_dc_services_status. The troubleshooting context is only implied by the word 'test'.

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