Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ad_update_dns_record

Modify an existing DNS record in a specified Active Directory DNS zone by updating its IPv4 address or CNAME alias, with optional dry-run validation before applying changes.

Instructions

[DNS & Infrastructure] [WRITE] Atualizar registro DNS existente.

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": {
      "zone_name": "<zone_name>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "ad_update_dns_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`name`	Yes
`dry_run`	No
`zone_name`	Yes
`record_type`	No	A
`correlation_id`	No
`new_cname_alias`	No
`new_ipv4_address`	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, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only says 'WRITE'. It does not disclose that the tool accepts a confirmation_token (implying a confirm-before-apply workflow), that dry_run=true previews changes without applying them, whether the update is partial or full, or that correlation_id exists for tracing. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage these are significant undisclosed behaviors.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler, so it is structurally clean. But the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — the same space could have carried the dry_run/confirmation_token contract.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for an 8-parameter destructive mutation with no annotations and no schema descriptions the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine the safe invocation protocol (preview with dry_run, then confirm) from this text.

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 8 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. Non-obvious parameters like confirmation_token, dry_run, correlation_id, and the new_cname_alias vs new_ipv4_address conditional pair are completely unexplained anywhere.

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 ('Atualizar registro DNS existente'), which cleanly separates it from the create/delete/get/list DNS record siblings. However it gives no scope detail such as which record types or which fields can be updated, so the agent must open the schema to learn anything beyond 'this modifies a DNS record'.

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 instead of ad_create_dns_record, ad_delete_dns_record, or ad_get_dns_record, and no mention of prerequisites such as the record needing to exist or needing a confirmation token. The 'existing' qualifier is the only usage hint and it is implicit at best.

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

Deploy Server