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

edr_incidents

Read-only

Search endpoint incidents within a 30-day window by time range and optional query filters to support read-only security investigations.

Instructions

[READ] Search incidents 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_incidents"
  }
}

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a read operation, so the '[READ]' label is largely duplicative. The description does add one useful behavioral constraint—the 30-day maximum range—but it says nothing about pagination, result limits, query behavior, or what an incident 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?

The single sentence is front-loaded and contains no filler. The '[READ]' marker is redundant with the annotation, but the description remains compact and easy to scan.

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 paginated search tool with five parameters, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain parameter formats, pagination via next_cursor, result shape, or how incidents differ from sibling incident/event resources.

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% across five parameters, so the description must carry the burden of explaining start_time, end_time, query, limit, and next_cursor. It only implies a time-range limit and gives no date format, query syntax, pagination semantics, or limit behavior.

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 identifies the resource as incidents and the operation as searching, but 'Search incidents' is generic and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools such as edr_incident_events or edr_events. The 30-day range mention adds scope, but an agent still cannot tell exactly when this tool is the right one.

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?

The only usage constraint given is that the search spans at most 30 days. There is no guidance on when to use this instead of related incident/event tools, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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