Microsoft Active Directory MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

ad_update_ou

Update an Active Directory organizational unit's attributes, including description and managed-by, with dry-run and confirmation safeguards.

Instructions

[Organizational Units] [WRITE] Atualizar atributos de uma OU.

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_ou"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dry_run`	No
`identity`	Yes
`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

C2.6/5.0

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 changes are irreversible, whether confirmation_token is required for commit, what dry_run does, or which attributes are left untouched when omitted.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded with tags, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — the single sentence leaves critical invoke-time information absent.

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?

A destructive mutation with six parameters, no annotations, and only an output schema provided. The description omits the dry_run/confirmation safety pattern that is clearly designed into the schema, leaving an agent unable to call this safely without inspecting parameter names alone.

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 six parameters appear only as bare titles. The description says 'atributos' but never names managed_by or description, and says nothing about dry_run, confirmation_token, or correlation_id, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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+resource ('Atualizar atributos de uma OU') and tags the category ([Organizational Units]) and write nature ([WRITE]), which separates it from ad_create_ou, ad_delete_ou, ad_move_object and ad_set_ou_protection. Slightly generic in that 'atributos' is never enumerated.

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 indication of when to use this versus siblings such as ad_set_ou_protection or ad_move_object, no prerequisites (permissions, confirmation workflow), and no mention that a dry_run path exists. The agent must infer everything about invocation context.

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

Deploy Server