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

edr_adversary_networks

Read-only

Search adversary network feeds to identify threat infrastructure and support read-only security investigations.

Instructions

[READ] Search adversary network 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_networks"
  }
}

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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the '[READ]' tag adds nothing beyond that. The description does not cover pagination behavior (the next_cursor parameter hints at paging), default result volume, or what a match represents, so it contributes almost no behavioral context.

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?

The definition is a single short sentence with no wasted prose, which is structurally clean. But the brevity comes at the cost of under-specification rather than economy, so it reads as terse rather than efficient.

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 three parameters at 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description needed to explain query syntax, pagination, and result shape. It supplies none of these, leaving an agent unable to call the tool confidently beyond passing an arbitrary string.

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 carries the full burden and fails: it does not explain the 'query' format (free text? IOC? wildcard?) despite it being required, nor what 'limit' bounds or how 'next_cursor' continues a result set. Only the generic word 'Search' weakly implies that query is a search term.

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 gives a verb ('Search') and a resource ('adversary network feed'), so the basic purpose is discernible. However, it does not distinguish this feed from closely related siblings such as edr_adversary_actors or edr_adversary_files, leaving the agent to guess what a 'network' record actually contains.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for related adversary data. The only usage signal is the '[READ]' prefix, which merely restates the annotation rather than guiding selection.

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