Resolve Active Directory users or groups by name to their SIDs for Horizon pool entitlement assignments.
[READ] Resolve AD users/groups by name to their SIDs — needed to entitle a pool (entitlement_add).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Name substring to search for. | |
| limit | No | Max principals to return (default 25). | |
| target | No | Horizon target from config.yaml; omit to use the default. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / limit / descriptionAdded value: +"Max principals to return (default 25)."Input schema / properties / name / descriptionAdded value: +"Name substring to search for."Input schema / properties / target / descriptionAdded value: +"Horizon target from config.yaml; omit to use the default."v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying the output concept (SIDs) and the integration purpose. It does not contradict annotations and adds value beyond them.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence with no filler. The READ tag and core purpose are front-loaded, and the downstream consumer (entitlement_add) is named efficiently without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple read-only search tool, the description plus annotations and full schema coverage are nearly complete. The description states the output goal (SIDs) even though no output schema exists. It could specify response shape or pagination behavior, but the current definition is adequate for correct selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (name, limit, target) are already documented. The description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Resolve'), a specific resource ('AD users/groups'), and a concrete outcome ('to their SIDs'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by tying its purpose to entitlement_add, so an agent can tell what this tool does at a glance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear contextual usage by explicitly saying this is needed to entitle a pool via entitlement_add. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, but there is no close sibling search tool to differentiate from, so the downstream pointer is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.