Petra Security MCP Server

petra_list_posture_reports

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve completed Microsoft 365 security posture reports with scores, control status, top risks, and suggested fixes to assess tenant security and track changes.

Instructions

Get completed Microsoft 365 security posture reports: score and grade (with previous score/grade on follow-ups), control rollup (secure, fixed, open, drifted), the Global Administrators review (count, MFA strength, password age), top risks, and every check with its status, severity, current state and suggested fix. By default returns the latest report per tenant.

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": "petra_list_posture_reports"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum reports (1-500, default 100).
`tenantId`	No	Limit to one tenant. Petra tenant ID (from petra_list_tenants, or the app.petrasecurity.com/tenant/<id> URL) or the Microsoft tenant ID; Petra resolves either.
`startDate`	No	Only reports completed on or after this ISO 8601 date or date-time.
`latestOnly`	No	Only the most recent completed report per tenant (default true). Set false for history, newest first.
`includeChecks`	No	Include the per-control checks array. Defaults to true; set false for a compact score/top-risks view.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is set. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the default de-duplication to the latest report per tenant, the inclusion of prior score/grade on follow-up reports, and the full per-check breakdown. It omits any note on pagination or truncation behavior when limit is hit, which is the main remaining gap.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a compact enumerated payload list, closed with the default scoping rule. The long enumeration is dense but each clause maps to a distinct part of the response, so little is wasted; a slightly tighter phrasing of the parentheticals would earn a 5.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description must carry the return-value burden, and it does so thoroughly by naming each component of a report. Missing only result-size/pagination behavior and any error or empty-result expectations, which keeps it just short of fully complete for a 5-parameter listing tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's only parameter-relevant content ('by default returns the latest report per tenant') restates the latestOnly default rather than adding format, resolution, or interaction detail beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (get completed Microsoft 365 security posture reports) and enumerates the payload precisely: score/grade, control rollup, Global Administrators review, top risks, and per-check detail. It is unambiguous against siblings like petra_list_incidents or petra_list_tenants, though it does not explicitly name an alternative report-listing tool to distinguish from.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool for posture reporting, and the default of latest-per-tenant is stated as behavior rather than as a when-to-use rule. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over a sibling or when to switch latestOnly/includeChecks modes for a given intent.

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

Deploy Server