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

edr_incident_lineage_events

Read-only

Search incident lineage events by time range to trace endpoint activity and support read-only EDR investigations.

Instructions

[READ] Search incident lineage events.

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_incident_lineage_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

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description only repeats the read-only nature already covered by readOnlyHint=true. It adds no behavioral context such as time-window requirements, pagination via next_cursor, limit handling, or result behavior.

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?

It is one short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than usefully concise. The [READ] tag is redundant with the annotation and the sentence is not front-loaded with actionable information.

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 five-parameter search tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the definition is far too sparse. It omits the required time range, pagination behavior, and any indication of what lineage events are or how results are shaped.

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?

The schema has five parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not explain any of them. It never mentions the required start_time/end_time, the query field, limit, or next_cursor, so an agent gets no semantic guidance beyond the parameter names.

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 names a verb and resource ("Search incident lineage events"), but "lineage" is undefined and it does not distinguish this from sibling tools such as edr_incident_events or edr_events. The [READ] marker mostly restates the annotation rather than clarifying scope.

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 and incident tools. It also omits any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-tool routing.

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