List EDR detection rules to review endpoint threat detection configurations, with optional severity and pagination filters for precise security analysis.
List EDR (Endpoint Detection & Response) detection rules.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | ||
| pageToken | No | ||
| severityLevel | No | Filter by rule severity level. | |
| includeTotalSize | No | Include totalSize in the response (costs an extra count query). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose pagination behavior, default page size, how severityLevel and includeTotalSize affect the call, or any response characteristics. An agent gets no richer behavioral context than the tool name already provides.
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, tightly written sentence with zero filler and no redundant restatement of the tool name. The acronym expansion and resource focus are front-loaded, making it quickly scannable.
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 4-parameter list tool with no annotations and no output schema, this one-line description is incomplete. It omits pagination details, filter semantics, response shape, and how this tool relates to get_edr_rule or list_edr_rule_exclusions, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it confidently beyond guessing from parameter names.
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 50%, with pageSize and pageToken undocumented. The tool description adds no parameter information at all, leaving those two pagination parameters unexplained and not clarifying severityLevel values or the total-size cost beyond the schema's own notes. The description therefore fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 names a specific verb and resource: 'List EDR (Endpoint Detection & Response) detection rules.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns and, through the term 'rules,' distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_edr_rule and list_edr_rule_exclusions. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, so it stops 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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as list_detections, get_edr_rule, or list_edr_rule_exclusions. The only usage signal is the verb 'List,' which implies using it when a collection of EDR rules is needed, but it provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or contextual triggers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.