Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ad_update_group

Update group attributes in Active Directory. Modify properties like display name, description, and managed-by fields to ensure directory accuracy.

Instructions

[Groups & Members] [WRITE] Atualizar atributos de um grupo.

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_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that it is a WRITE operation; it does not explain permissions, reversibility, dry_run, confirmation_token, or side effects of changing group attributes.

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?

Very short and front-loaded with category and operation tags followed by the action. It wastes no words, but its brevity contributes to under-specification rather than clarity.

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 write operation with seven undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description is far too thin. The output schema helps with return values, but it does not compensate for missing behavioral and parameter context.

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?

Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage; the description only says 'attributes' and never explains identity, managed_by, description, display_name, dry_run, confirmation_token, or correlation_id. An agent must infer all parameter meaning from names alone.

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 ('Atualizar') and resource ('atributos de um grupo'), and the [WRITE] tag clarifies operation type. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling update tools or create/delete group beyond the tool name, so not a 5.

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_create_group, ad_delete_group, or other update tools; no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb and [WRITE] tag.

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

Deploy Server