Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ad_update_computer

Update Active Directory computer attributes such as location, description, and managed-by assignments. Supports dry-run and confirmation tokens for safe write operations.

Instructions

[Computers & Devices] [WRITE] Atualizar atributos de computador.

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>"
    },
    "name": "ad_update_computer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dry_run`	No
`identity`	Yes
`location`	No
`managed_by`	No
`description`	No
`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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description only signals a write operation via the [WRITE] tag. It does not disclose permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, how dry_run works, or what confirmation_token is for.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is one short sentence with category and write tags front-loaded, so there is no fluff. However, it is too skeletal for a seven-parameter mutation tool, making the structure efficient but not appropriately sized.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations, seven parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no usage guidance. Although an output schema exists, the description omits nearly all information needed to invoke the tool safely.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it mentions no parameter names or meanings. It does not explain identity, dry_run, location, managed_by, description, correlation_id, or confirmation_token.

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: 'Atualizar atributos de computador' (update computer attributes). The [WRITE] tag distinguishes it from read-only siblings like ad_get_computer, though 'attributes' remains vague about which fields are updatable.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as ad_move_computer, ad_disable_computer, or ad_update_user. The [WRITE] tag implies mutation but does not explain prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server