Count Security Center insights by severity, class, or type for a zone to identify and prioritize security issues.
Get aggregated Security Center insight counts by dimension (severity, class, or type). Useful for quick security posture overview and prioritization.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| zone_id | Yes | required,The ID of the zone | |
| dimension | Yes | required,Aggregation dimension: severity or class or type |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description communicates the core behavior: aggregated counts by a requested dimension. However, there are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of disclosure; it does not mention response shape, whether counts include all insights, or any read-only guarantee, leaving some behavioral detail implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the operation and key dimensions, and the second sentence adds a useful use case without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, the description provides enough information for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The only notable omission is explicit detail about the returned format, but 'counts' makes the expected output reasonably inferable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters already have documentation. The tool description adds the purpose of the dimension field ('severity, class, or type') but does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get aggregated Security Center insight counts' by dimension. It also names the aggregation dimensions ('severity, class, or type'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling list_security_insights tool that returns raw insights rather than counts.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives a clear use context: 'quick security posture overview and prioritization.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the intended applicable scenario is evident enough for an agent to route to it appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.