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

Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

by nks1097
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

ad_test_ldap_connectivity

Tests LDAP/LDAPS connectivity to a Microsoft Active Directory server and diagnoses connection issues for directory access and administration tasks.

Instructions

[DNS & Infrastructure] [READ] Testar conectividade LDAP/LDAPS.

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_ldap_connectivity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portNo
serverNo
correlation_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only supplies a '[READ]' tag implying non-mutation. It says nothing about authentication/credential requirements, timeouts, whether the test is passive or opens real connections, or how failures are reported.

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 sentence with category and mode tags front-loaded; there is no filler. It is concise to the point of under-specification, but that gap is better penalized under completeness than conciseness.

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?

The output schema covers return values and the tool is low-complexity (3 optional params), but with no annotations and zero schema description coverage, the definition leaves parameter meaning and behavioral expectations (auth, LDAPS port selection, failure modes) unexplained.

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% (parameters have only titles/defaults), so the description must compensate and does not: server, port, and correlation_id are never mentioned. The only hint is 'LDAP/LDAPS', which implicitly suggests 389 vs 636, but that meaning is never stated.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description translates the tool name ('Test LDAP/LDAPS connectivity') and adds the LDAPS variant, which is a small increment. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from tested siblings like ad_test_kerberos_connectivity or ad_test_domain_controller beyond the protocol name.

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 test versus the other connectivity tests (Kerberos, secure channel, DNS resolution), no prerequisites, and no indication of what a successful or failed result means. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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