Find devices containing a given file hash to determine the lateral reach of a threat across your environment.
List the devices a file was seen on: the lateral scope of a hash.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Maximum number of machines to return (default 25, max 100). | |
| filter | No | OData $filter expression. Refine the filter instead of paging deep. | |
| file_hash | Yes | SHA1 or SHA256 of the file. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no extra behavioral detail such as pagination, authentication needs, or output shape, but the read-only intent is clear and consistent with the annotations.
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 one economical sentence with no filler. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the 'lateral scope' phrase adds useful investigative context without bloating the 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 read-only lookup with one required parameter and a fully documented schema, the description is sufficient to guide selection and invocation. It lacks an explicit statement about what fields the returned device list contains, and there is no output schema, but the core intent and scope are complete.
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 file_hash, top, and filter are already well documented. The description's 'file...hash' wording maps to file_hash and 'lateral scope' adds some semantic framing, but it does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.
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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('devices a file was seen on'), and explanatory phrase ('lateral scope of a hash'). This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like defender_get_file_info, defender_get_file_statistics, or defender_get_machines.
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 phrase 'devices a file was seen on' and 'lateral scope' clearly signals the use case: investigating where a particular hash has appeared across devices. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.