Skip to main content
Glama
shigechika

entraadm-mcp

by shigechika
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_user_auth_methods

Retrieve the authentication methods registered for an Entra ID account to verify whether MFA is actually set up and the account would survive a password-spray attack.

Instructions

Registered authentication methods for one account -- is MFA actually set up?

mfa_registered answers "would this account survive a password-spray hit": True iff at least one non-password method is registered (Authenticator app, phone, FIDO2 security key, Windows Hello, a temporary access pass, software OATH token, or a platform credential/passkey). password itself is excluded from that count -- every account has one, so its presence alone says nothing about MFA coverage.

A nonexistent account is a normal answer, not a tool failure: the result is {"found": false, "user_principal_name": upn} rather than an error key, matching get_user's contract.

Read-only (UserAuthenticationMethod.Read.All application permission). This endpoint is app-only only: it is not exposed to delegated (azure-cli) auth under this tenant's current role assignment, so it degrades to a permission error under azure-cli auth even when other tools work.

Args: upn: The account's userPrincipalName. tenant: Search this tenant instead of the one claiming the UPN's domain (section name, domain or tenant id): for a .onmicrosoft.com or #EXT# UPN, or a B2B guest's sign-ins in the host tenant.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
upnYes
tenantNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.8.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / tenant
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Tenant"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only status, the exact permission (UserAuthenticationMethod.Read.All), and a real operational constraint — app-only auth only, degrading to a permission error under azure-cli. It also pre-empts a common failure mode by stating that a nonexistent account returns {found: false} rather than an error, matching get_user's contract.

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?

The key claim (MFA registered or not) is front-loaded in the first two lines, followed by the precise mfa_registered definition, the not-found contract, and the auth caveat. The password-exclusion paragraph is slightly belabored but earns its place by preventing a misread of the count.

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

Completeness4/5

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

No output schema and no annotations exist, and the description covers the negative case's return shape, the permission model, and the auth-mode limitation. It does not sketch the shape of a successful result (the list of registered methods), which leaves a small gap for a tool whose whole purpose is enumerating them.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must document both parameters. The tenant argument gets rich treatment — what it overrides (the domain-claiming tenant), accepted forms (section name, domain, tenant id), and the scenarios that require it. The upn argument is only glossed as 'the account's userPrincipalName', which is adequate but adds little.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Registered authentication methods for one account') and immediately frames the practical question it answers ('is MFA actually set up?'). This is clearly distinguishable from sibling get_user, which returns account attributes rather than auth method registrations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The MFA-coverage framing plus the 'password is excluded from the count' note tells an agent exactly what question this tool answers, and the tenant argument is scoped with concrete cases (onmicrosoft.com, #EXT#, B2B guest sign-ins in host tenant). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or an explicit when-not-to-use condition.

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