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

edr_events

Read-only

Search endpoint events within a 30-day range using start and end times, optional query filters, and cursor pagination for read-only incident investigations.

Instructions

[READ] Search events over at most 30 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_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

C2.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes this as a safe read operation, and the description redundantly reinforces that with "[READ]" while adding the useful 30-day maximum window. However, it says nothing about pagination behavior via next_cursor, what limit controls, or what the results contain, which matters for a search tool.

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, and the 30-day constraint appears immediately. The "[READ]" tag duplicates the annotation, but the overall structure is 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?

For a five-parameter search tool with 0% schema description coverage and no output schema, this definition is too thin to support correct invocation. It omits query syntax, time format requirements, pagination semantics, and differentiation from sibling event tools.

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 five parameters, and the description does not explain start_time/end_time formats, query syntax, limit behavior, or next_cursor pagination. The only implicit parameter-related detail is the 30-day time window, leaving most parameter meaning undocumented.

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 general verb and resource ("Search events") plus a 30-day scope constraint, but "events" is highly ambiguous among siblings such as edr_incident_events, edr_audit_events, and edr_sandbox_events. It does not distinguish this generic event search from the more specific event-search tools.

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 event tools, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The 30-day limit is a constraint, but it does not help an agent choose this tool over alternatives.

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