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

edr_audit_events

Read-only

Search audit events within a 7-day window to investigate endpoint incidents and activity, with query filters and pagination for governed read-only analysis.

Instructions

[READ] Search audit events over at most 7 days.

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": {
      "start_time": "<start_time>",
      "end_time": "<end_time>"
    },
    "name": "edr_audit_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, so the description's main added value is the hard 7-day range cap, which tells the agent it must bound its time window before calling. Beyond that it says nothing about pagination via next_cursor, default result size, query syntax, timestamp format, or what a result record contains.

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 bracketed access tag plus one tight sentence, with the range constraint front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is the same trait that leaves the tool under-described.

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?

For a 5-parameter search tool with zero schema descriptions, no output schema, and only a readOnly annotation, the description is far too thin. It should at minimum cover timestamp format, what query matches, limit/pagination behavior, and how the result set differs from sibling event tools.

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 compensate and it largely does not. The only parameter-related meaning conveyed is the implied 7-day bound on start_time/end_time; limit, query, and next_cursor are left completely undefined in both schema and description.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search audit events') plus a scope constraint ('over at most 7 days'). It is reasonably clear what the tool does, but it offers no differentiation from close siblings such as edr_events, edr_incident_events, or edr_system_activities, leaving the agent to guess why 'audit events' is distinct.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no named alternative. The 7-day window hints at a constraint but does not tell the agent whether to prefer edr_events or edr_system_activities for adjacent data.

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