List security response playbooks with filters for active status, category, and record limit to quickly find relevant incident response, threat hunting, or compliance procedures.
List available security response playbooks
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max records (default 25) | |
| active | No | Filter active only (default true) | |
| category | No | Filter by category (incident_response, threat_hunting, compliance) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond the word 'available,' which aligns with the schema's active filter. It does not disclose pagination behavior or the fact that only active playbooks are returned by default.
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, six-word sentence that is clear and free of filler. Every word contributes meaning without redundancy.
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, the description adequately states its function. However, since there is no output schema, it does not explain what the response will contain, and it does not differentiate from the similar list_playbooks tool. Still, the core task is clear.
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?
All three parameters (limit, active, category) are described in the schema with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra parameter meaning, 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clearly defined resource ('security response playbooks'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It distinguishes from run_security_playbook but not explicitly from sibling list_playbooks, though the 'security response' qualifier narrows the scope.
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 usage when an agent needs to retrieve security response playbooks, but lacks any guidance on when to prefer this over list_playbooks or run_security_playbook. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.