Skip to main content
Glama
jamescash1976

SentinelOne MCP Server

s1_threats

List and filter threats to drill down into incidents, returning threat name, classification, confidence, verdict, status, mitigation, file path/hash, affected machine and site, newest first.

Instructions

List threats/detections with filters — the drill-down tool for incidents. Returns each threat's name, classification, confidence level (malicious/suspicious), analyst verdict, incident status, mitigation status and actions, detection engine, file path/hash, affected machine and site, sorted newest first. Returns a compact summary per threat by default; set full_details=true for complete raw records. Use s1_threat_summary for aggregated counts across the estate.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idsNoComma-separated threat IDs to fetch specific threats
limitNoMax records per response (default 25, max 1000).
cursorNoPagination cursor: pass the nextCursor from the previous response to get the next page.
site_idsNoComma-separated site IDs to scope to
full_detailsNoReturn complete raw threat records instead of the compact summary. Default false.
computer_nameNoFilter to threats on machines whose name contains this text
created_afterNoOnly threats detected after this ISO 8601 datetime, e.g. "2026-07-01T00:00:00Z"
content_hashesNoComma-separated SHA1 hashes to search for
created_beforeNoOnly threats detected before this ISO 8601 datetime
classificationsNoComma-separated threat classifications, e.g. "Malware,Ransomware,PUA,Trojan"
analyst_verdictsNoComma-separated: "undefined", "true_positive", "false_positive", "suspicious"
confidence_levelsNoComma-separated: "malicious", "suspicious", "n/a"
incident_statusesNoComma-separated: "unresolved", "in_progress", "resolved". Use "unresolved,in_progress" for open incidents.
mitigation_statusesNoComma-separated: "not_mitigated", "mitigated", "marked_as_benign"
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default compact summary behavior, the full_details flag for raw records, and the sorting order (newest first). It does not mention rate limits or pagination details, but the core behavioral traits are well-covered.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, return fields/behavior, and alternative tool. It is front-loaded and tightly written with no filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the complexity (14 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, return field list, default vs full_details, sorting, and sibling distinction. It does not explain the pagination return structure, but the schema covers the cursor parameter, making this a minor gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 14 parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond mentioning full_details behavior, which is also in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool 'List threats/detections with filters' and identifies it as 'the drill-down tool for incidents,' which distinguishes it from the sibling s1_threat_summary. It enumerates the specific fields returned, making the purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly directs users to 'Use s1_threat_summary for aggregated counts across the estate,' providing a clear alternative. The description also frames this as the drill-down tool for incidents, implying when detailed threat data is needed versus aggregate summaries.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jamescash1976/sentinelone-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server