List and filter EDR security incidents by state, severity, verdict, customer, workload, and time range to investigate threats and track mitigation status.
Lists EDR security incidents, with optional filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Query parameters |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0-semantically-releasedDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read. The description adds essentially no behavioral context beyond that: no mention of pagination via cursor, the default tenant scoping from the auth token, result limits, or what a listing returns. For an EDR investigation endpoint, that is thin.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero redundancy. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.
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?
The rich, fully described nested query schema carries most of the burden, so the agent can construct calls. However, for a heavily filterable list endpoint with a singular sibling, the description leaves the selection and pagination story implicit, which is a real gap even if a modest one.
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 every filter (state, severity, verdict, created_at range operators, customer_id scoping, cursor stability rules) is already documented in the schema. The description only says filters are 'optional' and does not explain the operator syntax or the tenant-scoping behavior, so baseline 3 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 gives a specific verb ('Lists') and resource ('EDR security incidents') plus the scope note that filters are optional. The plural 'Lists' implicitly contrasts with the singular acronis_fetch_incident sibling, but the description never explicitly names that distinction, so 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Beyond 'with optional filters' there is no when-to-use guidance: nothing says when to choose this over acronis_fetch_incident, acronis_fetch_all_alerts, or acronis_search, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. The agent must infer the routing from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.