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

edr_sandbox_verdict

Read-only

Reads the sandbox verdict for a file using its SHA-256 hash to determine whether it is malicious or benign during endpoint investigations.

Instructions

[READ] Read sandbox verdict by SHA-256.

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": {
      "sha2": "<sha2>"
    },
    "name": "edr_sandbox_verdict"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sha2`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, and the '[READ]' prefix merely restates it. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say what a verdict contains, what happens when no verdict exists for a hash, or whether analysis latency or caching applies.

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 short sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded. The '[READ]' tag is redundant with the readOnlyHint annotation, which is the only minor waste in an otherwise efficient definition.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a single-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description covers the essential call mechanics but omits what the response contains and how a missing verdict is signalled. No output schema exists, so the description is the only place that return semantics could be conveyed, and it is silent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the schema only exposes an undocumented 'sha2' string. The description partly compensates by stating the argument is a SHA-256 hash, but it adds no format details (hex casing, length, whether a 'sha256:' prefix is accepted).

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?

The description states a specific verb (Read) and a specific resource (sandbox verdict), and identifies the lookup key as SHA-256. It separates the tool from sibling sandbox resources such as edr_sandbox_events and edr_sandbox_activities, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no prerequisites such as whether the hash must have been previously submitted for sandbox analysis. The 'by SHA-256' phrasing implies the lookup pattern but gives no exclusions or routing guidance.

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