threatlocker-mcp

computer_get_for_edit_by_id

Retrieve detailed computer information by ID for editing, with optional organization overrides for multi-tenant management.

Instructions

Get Computer Information By Id.

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": "computer_get_for_edit_by_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`computer_id`	No
`organization_id`	No	Override the default organization (ManagedOrganizationId header).
`override_organization_id`	No	Optional OverrideManagedOrganizationId header.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations and a one-sentence description, there is no disclosure of behavioral traits such as whether the tool acquires a lock, requires permissions, or has side effects. The name 'for_edit' suggests mutation, but the description only says 'Get', creating ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short but under-specified. It does not earn its place by providing substantive information beyond the name, making it a case of under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a complex domain (implied by sibling tools), the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain the 'for edit' functionality, return values, or parameter usage, rendering the tool largely opaque to an AI agent.

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?

The description adds no meaning to the parameters. While the schema covers two out of three parameters with descriptions, the primary parameter 'computer_id' is left undocumented, and the description does not explain it. Schema coverage is 67%, but the description fails to compensate for the gap.

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 'Get Computer Information By Id' restates the tool's name without clarifying the 'for edit' aspect, which suggests a locking or editing context. It is clear as a basic get operation but misses the nuance implied by the name, making it only marginally better than a tautology.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'computer_get_by_all_parameters' or 'computer_update_for_edit'. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or context for edit-related usage.

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

Deploy Server