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

ms-sentinel-mcp-server

by dstreefkerk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Remote

sentinel_ti_indicator_get

Retrieve specific threat intelligence indicators from Microsoft Sentinel to analyze security threats and enhance monitoring capabilities.

Instructions

Get a specific Sentinel threat intelligence indicator

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_ti_indicator_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kwargsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what the output looks like, which is insufficient for a tool with unknown behavior.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the minimal information it conveys.

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?

Given no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavior, and output, making it inadequate for a tool that likely interacts with threat intelligence data.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no parameter information. The single parameter 'kwargs' is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving its meaning and usage completely unclear.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('specific Sentinel threat intelligence indicator'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'sentinel_ti_indicator_metrics_collect', but the specificity is adequate.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or differences from related tools like 'sentinel_incident_get' or 'sentinel_hunting_query_get', leaving usage ambiguous.

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