Retrieve an automated investigation's state, status, device, and triggering alert by providing its ID. Use to check investigation progress and details.
Get one automated investigation: state, status details, device and triggering alert.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| investigation_id | Yes | The investigation ID. |
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, and the description is consistent with that safety profile. It adds context about the returned fields (state, status details, device, triggering alert) but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. This meets the baseline given annotation coverage.
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, information-dense sentence. It front-loads the action and resource, lists the key return contents, and contains no filler or redundant wording.
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 one-parameter read-only getter with no output schema, the description adequately lists the primary return components. It does not mention how to obtain the investigation_id or potential errors, but these are secondary for a simple retrieval tool. The description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.
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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single parameter investigation_id with 'The investigation ID.' The description adds no extra semantics about the ID format, source, or usage beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 exactly what the tool does: retrieves a single automated investigation with its key components (state, status details, device, triggering alert). The singular 'one' and 'automated investigation' distinguish it clearly from sibling tools like defender_get_investigations and defender_get_incident.
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?
No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention that this is the by-ID variant of defender_get_investigations or that listing investigations requires the plural version. The implication from 'one' is weak and not a substitute for clear routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.