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

edr_system_activities

Read-only

Search system activities over at most 7 days to investigate endpoint incidents, events, and related security data.

Instructions

[READ] Search system activities over at most 7 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_system_activities"
  }
}

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered before the description starts. The description does add one genuinely useful fact not in the schema: the maximum 7-day span between start_time and end_time. It says nothing about pagination behaviour, default result ordering, permissions, or truncation, which matter for a search endpoint.

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?

One sentence, with the [READ] tag and the hard constraint front-loaded. There is no filler, though the brevity here edges into under-specification rather than economy.

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 5-parameter search tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent has no way to know the timestamp format, the query grammar, or how to page results without trial and error.

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%, so all five parameters (start_time, end_time, query, limit, next_cursor) are bare titles with no types-of-value guidance. The description only constrains the start/end time pair to a 7-day span and never states the expected timestamp format, the query syntax, or how next_cursor interacts with limit.

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?

"Search system activities" does state a verb and a resource, but "system activities" is vague against a sibling set containing edr_events, edr_audit_events, edr_incident_events, and edr_sandbox_activities. The description gives no basis for telling this log apart from those, so an agent must guess.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The only implied condition is the 7-day window, which is a constraint rather than a routing rule.

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