login_activityRetrieve failed logon and Remote Desktop logon events from the Windows Security log for the last 24 hours. Requires administrator rights; reports if unchecked.
Failed logons and Remote Desktop logons from the Windows Security log over the last 24 hours. Needs administrator rights; otherwise says it was not checked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety burden is lifted. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond them: it requires administrator rights and degrades gracefully by reporting 'not checked' rather than failing silently, which tells the agent how to interpret a partial result.
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 sentences, no filler. The what/scope comes first and the operational caveat (admin rights, degradation behavior) is placed second, which is the right front-loading order.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it does describe the content (failed and RDP logons) and the failure mode. It stops short of describing the shape of individual entries or any pagination/volume limits, which is a minor gap for a log-dump tool.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly spends no space on parameter syntax.
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 resource (Windows Security log), the exact event classes retrieved (failed logons and Remote Desktop logons), and a bounded time window (last 24 hours). This is specific enough that an agent can distinguish it from siblings like list_findings or list_connections without consulting any schema.
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 scope ('last 24 hours', 'Windows Security log') implies the situation in which this tool is the right pick, but the description never states when to use it versus alternatives, nor any exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.