axiorank_list_incidentsList security alerts/incidents in your workspace, newest first, filterable by status (open/acknowledged/resolved/suppressed), severity (low/medium/high/critical) and kind (high_risk/anomaly/auto_response/kill_chain/ml_threat). Requires the logs:read scope.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| severity | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive hints. Description adds ordering and filter capabilities, but does not significantly expand beyond the structured data. No contradictions.
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?
Two sentences with front-loaded action and filters, followed by a necessary scope requirement. No redundant information.
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 list tool with 4 optional params and no output schema, description provides core functionality and filters. Missing limit/pagination details, but ordering and filter options are covered. Sibling tools with similar patterns reduce need for exhaustive description.
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 coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. Description names three filter parameters (status, severity, kind) but does not explain enum values or mention the limit parameter. Partially compensates, but leaves gap for limit and lacks depth on filter options.
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?
Description clearly states the tool lists security alerts/incidents, specifies ordering (newest first), and lists filterable dimensions (status, severity, kind). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_incident (single incident) and list_agents (different resource).
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?
Includes a prerequisite (logs:read scope) and implies use for listing incidents vs single retrieval, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, covering different aspects of agent, policy, incident, and threat management with no overlap. Tools like axiorank_list_agents and axiorank_get_agent are differentiated by list vs. get, and quarantine vs. revoke serve different use cases.
All tools follow a consistent 'axiorank_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, making it easy to predict tool names based on action and resource. No mixing of conventions or abbreviations.
With 22 tools, the server covers a comprehensive security governance domain. While slightly above the typical 'well-scoped' range, each tool serves a specific function and the count is justified by the breadth of features (agents, policies, incidents, scoring, verification, audit).
The tool surface covers agent and policy lifecycle (CRUD except delete), incident querying, scoring, verification, and audit. Minor gaps include missing delete operations for policies and incidents, and no way to update incident status. However, the core workflows are well-supported.