Lists Elastic Security detection rules with optional name filtering and returns each rule's ID, type, and enabled state for auditing or selection.
List detection rules (optionally filtered by name). Returns ids, types and enabled state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | ||
| search | No | ||
| per_page | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds which fields come back (ids, types, enabled state), which is useful context, but it says nothing about pagination behavior or result limits even though page and per_page exist — a notable omission for a list endpoint.
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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The return-fields clause is slightly redundant given the output schema, but it is compact and readable.
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 three-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, most of what an agent needs is present. The gaps are pagination semantics (page/per_page behavior, total counts) and whether the name search is fuzzy, which matter for calling it correctly on large rule sets.
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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It clarifies that the string parameter is a name filter, but leaves page and per_page (with defaults 1 and 20) entirely unexplained, and does not say whether the search is exact-match or substring.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ("List detection rules") plus the optional name filter, which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling tools (check_rule_readiness, request_rule_enable, get_enable_request) that operate on individual rules. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.
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 parenthetical "optionally filtered by name" implies when to pass a filter, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this listing tool versus check_rule_readiness or request_rule_enable, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Usage is inferable rather than guided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.