Find devices with a specific software installed by supplying its software ID. Returns a list of affected machines for vulnerability tracking and response.
List the devices that have a software installed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| top | No | Maximum number of machines to return (default 25, max 200). | |
| software_id | Yes | The software ID, e.g. microsoft-_-edge. |
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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond restating the list operation; it does not mention pagination, result ordering, or that the result is a machine list. This is acceptable but not additive.
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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and object, though the awkward phrasing 'a software' slightly reduces polish. It earns its place without burdening the agent.
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 two-parameter read-only list tool, the description and schema together are mostly sufficient. However, the absence of usage guidance and the lack of any note about the return shape or pagination leave minor gaps, especially without an output schema. The description is adequate but not 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%, with both 'top' and 'software_id' documented in the input schema. The description adds little semantic value beyond the schema, but none is really needed. 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 clearly states a specific action ('List the devices') and the resource ('devices that have a software installed'), which distinguishes it from vulnerability-focused siblings like defender_get_machines_by_vulnerability. However, it could more explicitly name the parameter (software_id) as the filter key, and the phrasing 'a software' is slightly vague.
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 provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as defender_get_machines, defender_get_machines_by_vulnerability, or defender_get_software. There is no mention of when this tool is appropriate or when a sibling would be better, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.