Skip to main content
Glama
shigechika

entraadm-mcp

by shigechika
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

signin_success_stats

Aggregates successful Entra ID sign-ins by source IP to spot breach patterns, showing shared IPs and legacy-auth users across accounts.

Instructions

Tenant-wide successful sign-in aggregation by source IP -- the view that finds a breach.

signin_failure_stats shows who is being attacked; this shows whether anyone got in. The breach signature is one source IP signing in successfully as several different accounts, most often over a legacy protocol (clientAppUsed such as "Authenticated SMTP" or "IMAP4", which carry no MFA). shared_ips lists the IPs with successes for min_distinct_users or more distinct accounts, most-shared first (up to 50 IPs, shared_ips_capped when more qualified; account names up to 25 per IP), with the client apps and the countries seen. legacy_auth_users lists the accounts that succeeded over a legacy protocol at all, with how many IPs and countries they came from.

A campus NAT, a VDI farm or a shared proxy also puts many accounts behind one IP, so a shared IP is a lead, not a verdict: the caller excludes its own egress ranges and reads the client apps and countries before calling anything a breach. Graph cannot filter sign-ins on status/errorCode server-side, so like signin_failure_stats this walks the sign-in log for the window and aggregates client-side. The walk covers interactive sign-ins only (Graph's default listing): every legacy-protocol authentication is logged as interactive, so none is missed, but non-interactive token refreshes are not counted; capped=true means the page budget or the deadline (ENTRAADM_DEADLINE, default 45 s) ran out first and the counts are a lower bound -- narrow hours for a full count.

Read-only (AuditLog.Read.All application permission, or -- for azure-cli auth -- the Reports Reader directory role).

Args: hours: How far back to look, clamped to [1, 720] (30 days). max_pages: Page budget (default: ENTRAADM_MAX_PAGES_DEFAULT). min_distinct_users: Distinct accounts an IP needs to appear in shared_ips (default 2, clamped to >= 2). tenant: Tenant to read: a [tenant.] section name or one of its domains (default: the default tenant).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hoursNo
tenantNo
max_pagesNo
min_distinct_usersNo

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. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: read-only access, required permissions, client-side aggregation, interactive-only sign-ins, capped results as lower bounds, and deadline/page-budget behavior are all disclosed.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but front-loaded and appropriately sized for a complex aggregation tool. Each paragraph adds operational meaning, and the Args section compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions rather than repeating structured data.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, but the description explains the returned views, caps, account limits, and caveats thoroughly enough for an agent to interpret results. It also covers permissions and aggregation limitations that are critical for correct use.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although schema description coverage is 0%, the Args section fully explains each parameter: hours is clamped to [1, 720], max_pages uses an environment default, min_distinct_users defaults to 2 and is clamped to >= 2, and tenant accepts a tenant section name or domain.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: tenant-wide successful sign-in aggregation by source IP. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling signin_failure_stats, making the intended view clear without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It names the alternative and the condition that selects it: signin_failure_stats shows who is attacked, while this tool shows whether anyone got in. It also warns that shared IPs from NAT, VDI, or proxies are leads rather than verdicts, which is explicit usage guidance.

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