io.github.AIops-tools/symantec-edr-aiops

edr_adversary_actors

Read-only

Search adversary actor feeds to identify threat actors for endpoint investigations. Use query and limit parameters to retrieve relevant results.

Instructions

[READ] Search adversary actor feed.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "edr_adversary_actors"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	Yes
`next_cursor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so "[READ]" adds nothing new. The description says nothing about what an "adversary actor feed" returns (threat-intel records? actor profiles?), how large the feed is, or how pagination behaves despite a next_cursor parameter.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the resource front-loaded, so it is efficiently sized. But the brevity comes at the cost of substance — it is under-specified rather than genuinely concise, and the redundant "[READ]" prefix occupies part of an already tiny budget.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations beyond the read-only flag, and three undocumented parameters, the description would need to do real work and instead does almost none. An agent could invoke it, but only by guessing at query syntax and cursor semantics.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails entirely. It never explains what the required 'query' matches against (actor name, alias, IOC?), what 'limit' bounds, or how 'next_cursor' should be threaded from a prior call.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description pairs the verb "Search" with the resource "adversary actor feed," so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it gives no hint of how it differs from closely named siblings like edr_adversary_files or edr_adversary_networks, leaving the agent to infer that this covers actors rather than their artifacts.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The only cue is the "[READ]" tag, which merely restates the readOnlyHint annotation rather than telling the agent when this feed is the right source versus an incidents or events search.

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