EyalSec MCP Server

Official

by EyalSec

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

List machines

list_machines

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve every machine on an EyalSec account with status, OS, builds, Python version, and flags for clones, stalled installs, or outdated reporting.

Instructions

Every machine on the account: name, status, public_id, OS target, installed and newest build, Python version, product, and flags for a clone, a stalled install or an old copy still reporting.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_machines"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds interpretive value by naming the returned attributes, including the meaning of the flags ('a clone, a stalled install or an old copy still reporting'), but says nothing about auth needs, pagination, or result size for what could be a large account-wide listing.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the scope ('Every machine on the account') before enumerating fields. The field list is long but each element is concrete; nothing is wasted on filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a zero-parameter listing tool this is nearly complete; only pagination or result-size behavior is left unstated.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is no parameter surface the description could clarify or fail to clarify.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Every machine on the account') and even scopes it to the full account, which is unambiguous. It does not need to differentiate from siblings because no sibling tool lists machines, but it never explicitly does so either, which is why it falls short of a 5.

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 call this versus alternatives, no note on whether results can be filtered or scoped, and no mention of prerequisites or pagination. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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