Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ms-sentinel-mcp-server

ms-sentinel-mcp-server

by dstreefkerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

sentinel_metadata_list

Lists all Microsoft Sentinel metadata in your current workspace to help you manage and organize security monitoring resources.

Instructions

List all Sentinel metadata in the current workspace.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "kwargs": "<kwargs>"
    },
    "name": "sentinel_metadata_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kwargsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a list operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' means in practice (e.g., completeness guarantees).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the essential action and resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the parameter, return format, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, with one undocumented parameter 'kwargs'. The description adds no parameter information beyond what's in the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('List all') and resource ('Sentinel metadata'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'sentinel_metadata_get' or explain what 'metadata' specifically refers to in this context.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'sentinel_metadata_get' or other list tools. The description mentions 'current workspace' but doesn't explain prerequisites or exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools