Retrieve a specific device's security details using its Defender machine ID. Get OS, health, risk, exposure, tags, IPs, and first/last seen times.
Get one device: DNS name, OS, health, risk and exposure level, tags, device value, IPs, first and last seen. Accepts the machine ID (the mdeDeviceId of alert evidence).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| machine_id | Yes | The Defender for Endpoint machine (device) ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying the exact response content (DNS name, OS, health, risk, exposure, tags, IPs, timestamps), which is especially useful because there is no output schema. It does not cover error/not-found behavior, but annotations lower the bar.
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?
Two tightly packed sentences: the first states the action and result fields, the second tells the agent where the ID comes from. No filler or repeated schema content.
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 lookup with no output schema, this description is complete: it identifies the resource, the required input, and the returned fields. The annotations cover the safety profile, so nothing essential is missing.
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 describes machine_id at 100% coverage. The description adds the key semantic that this is the mdeDeviceId from alert evidence, which tells an agent exactly where to obtain the value.
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 specific verb and resource ('Get one device') and enumerates the returned fields, making it unmistakably a single-device lookup by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling bulk/collection getters like defender_get_machines and find helpers.
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?
It gives a clear usage context: use this when you have a machine ID, specifically the mdeDeviceId from alert evidence. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, 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.