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

edr_adversary_files

Read-only

Search the adversary file feed to identify known malicious files and support read-only endpoint investigations. Use query filters with pagination to review threat intelligence results.

Instructions

[READ] Search adversary file 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_files"
  }
}

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation, and the description's [READ] tag merely repeats it. The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, result limits, feed freshness, or rate constraints.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves little room for operational detail.

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?

Given three parameters, no output schema, and only a read-only annotation, the description is too sparse for an agent to invoke the tool confidently. Missing details include query format, pagination semantics, and what the feed returns.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the three parameters, but it only implies that "query" is a search term. It says nothing about query syntax, the limit parameter, or how next_cursor pagination works.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: "Search adversary file feed." The [READ] tag reinforces the operation type. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this feed from closely related siblings such as edr_file_entities or edr_adversary_actors.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling EDR feed and entity tools. Usage is only implied by "Search," with no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives named.

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