List related detections clustered by common threat to identify malware spreading across devices and assess incident scope.
List detection groups - related detections clustered together (e.g. the same malware across many devices).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| endTime | No | ||
| pageSize | No | ||
| pageToken | No | ||
| startTime | No | ||
| deviceUuid | No | ||
| cloudOfficeTenantUuid | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only explains what detection groups conceptually are and does not state whether the operation is read-only, how pagination works, what filtering is supported, or what the response contains. No behavioral traits beyond purpose are disclosed.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices needed detail for brevity. No wasted words.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly call this tool. It does not explain required or optional filters, pagination, or return format, leaving critical information missing.
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 0% and the tool description mentions none of the six parameters. An agent cannot infer what endTime, startTime, deviceUuid, cloudOfficeTenantUuid, pageSize, or pageToken do. The description fails to compensate for the total lack of schema documentation.
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?
States the specific verb 'List' and the resource 'detection groups', and defines what detection groups are with a clarifying example ('related detections clustered together, e.g. the same malware across many devices'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like esetprotect_list_detections and esetprotect_get_detection_group.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that esetprotect_list_detections handles individual detections or that esetprotect_get_detection_group retrieves a specific group. Usage is only implied by the resource name, not explained.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.