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

edr_entities

Read-only

Search endpoint detection and response entities by query with pagination to support governed, read-only investigations.

Instructions

[READ] Search EDR entities.

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_entities"
  }
}

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

D1.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The '[READ]' tag only repeats readOnlyHint=true from the annotations, adding nothing beyond structured data. Pagination behavior (next_cursor), whether limit caps results, and the shape of returned entities are all undisclosed, and there is no output schema to compensate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single sentence is front-loaded and free of waste, but at this length it is under-specification rather than conciseness. It conveys effectively no information beyond the tool's name.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a search tool with an undocumented query parameter, cursor-based pagination, no parameter descriptions, and no output schema, the definition leaves every aspect of invocation to guesswork. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is present.

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% for three parameters, and the description supplies no meaning for any of them. Query syntax, cursor semantics, and limit bounds are all undocumented, leaving the agent to guess at required input format.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description restates the tool name with a generic verb ('Search EDR entities') and never defines what an 'entity' is. With siblings such as edr_file_entities, edr_adversary_actors, edr_incidents, and edr_events, an agent cannot tell which resource family this covers.

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 exclusions, and no naming of alternatives among the ~20 sibling edr_* tools. Nothing indicates whether this is a broad catch-all search or a narrower lookup, so tool selection is left entirely to inference.

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