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

edr_appliances

Read-only

Read metadata for EDR management appliances to review appliance details, support inventory checks, and troubleshoot on-premises Symantec EDR deployments.

Instructions

[READ] Read EDR management appliance metadata.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "edr_appliances"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this is a safe read, and the description's '[READ]' prefix simply repeats it. Beyond naming the resource, it discloses nothing about what 'metadata' contains, whether the list is paginated or truncated, or any auth/tenant scoping 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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, with no wasted clauses. The bracketed '[READ]' is redundant given the annotation and slightly noise-like, which keeps it off a 5.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to know what is being fetched. However, an agent cannot tell whether 'appliance metadata' means configuration, versions, health status, or a list of appliances, and no output shape is disclosed.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline of 4 applies; no gap exists here, but there is also no added value to reward.

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 uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('EDR management appliance metadata'), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like edr_incidents or edr_events. It falls short of a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings, relying on the reader to infer that 'appliances' is a distinct resource class.

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 mention of prerequisites or alternatives, and no indication of what question this tool answers versus the other 19 edr_* tools. The '[READ]' tag 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.