Retrieve automated investigations with their current state and the alert that triggered each.
List automated investigations with their state and the alert that triggered each.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Maximum number of investigations to return (default 25, max 100). | |
| skip | No | Number of entries to skip (paging). | |
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results include investigation state and triggering alert, which is useful. However, it does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, or whether the filter supports OData syntax beyond the schema's mention.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and it includes the most important output context (state and triggering alert). No wasted words.
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 tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks any mention of pagination behavior, default ordering, or how the filter parameter interacts with paging—details an agent might need for correct invocation. The output schema is absent, so a bit more return-format context would help.
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 the schema already documents all three parameters (top, skip, filter) with defaults and meanings. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('automated investigations'), and the key returned data ('state and the alert that triggered each'). It is clear and distinguishes from the sibling defender_get_investigation_by_id (which fetches a single investigation), though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling.
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 description implies a read/list use case but does not state when to prefer this over defender_get_investigation_by_id or other investigation-related tools. The filter parameter hints at refining results, but no explicit when-to-use or alternative guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.