Retrieve Microsoft Defender XDR alerts associated with a domain, with filtering and top-N options.
List the Defender for Endpoint alerts that involve a domain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Maximum number of alerts to return (default 25, max 100). | |
| domain | Yes | Domain name. | |
| filter | No | OData $filter expression. Refine the filter instead of paging deep. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false annotations already establish the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral nuance such as how 'involve' a domain is matched, whether pagination is used, or how the filter affects the result set. It is simply a restatement of the tool's basic operation.
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 states the action, resource, and scope with no filler. It earns its place and leaves no redundant text.
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 simple list operation with complete parameter schemas and readOnly annotations, the description is minimally viable. It does not describe what fields the returned alerts will contain, what domain matching means, or how the OData filter interacts with the domain parameter, but the core call can be constructed correctly from the schema and description.
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?
The input schema already covers 100% of the parameters with useful descriptions for top, domain, and filter. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 uses a clear verb ('List') with a specific resource ('Defender for Endpoint alerts') and a domain scope, which is distinct enough to separate it from get_domain_machines or get_domain_statistics. It does not explicitly compare against sibling tools, 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?
The context is implied: use this tool when you need alerts related to a given domain. However, there is no mention of when to prefer it over sibling alert tools such as defender_get_file_alerts or defender_get_ip_alerts, nor any guidance on when a different domain-focused tool would be better.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.