Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
azure-query-mcp

azure-query-mcp

by kapetanios55
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_incident

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a Microsoft Sentinel incident with its alerts and related account, IP, and host entities, plus pivot entities for timeline queries and unresolved identifiers.

Instructions

Get one Microsoft Sentinel incident with its alerts and the account, IP and host entities involved. Returned pivotEntities can be passed directly to entity_timeline; unresolvedEntities lists entities recorded without a usable identifier (for example only a display name or SID).

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": {
      "workspaceId": "<workspaceId>",
      "incidentNumber": "<incidentNumber>"
    },
    "name": "get_incident"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timespanNoISO 8601 duration back from now (P7D, PT12H), or an interval: start/end (2026-10-01T00:00:00Z/2026-10-02T00:00:00Z) or start/duration (2026-10-01T08:00:00Z/PT6H). Times need Z or an offset. Default P30D.P30D
workspaceIdYesWorkspace ID (GUID) or the workspace's full ARM resource ID; list_workspaces returns both.
incidentNumberYesIncident number as shown in Sentinel.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by explaining the two output buckets — pivotEntities (usable identifiers, downstream-feedable) and unresolvedEntities (recorded without usable identifier, e.g. display name or SID only) — which tells the agent how to interpret partial results.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and return shape front-loaded and the output-field explanation following. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining returned fields and does so for the entity pivots. It stops short of noting how the timespan parameter constrains which alerts are returned, and says nothing about behavior when the incident number does not exist — minor but real gaps for a lookup tool.

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 workspaceId, incidentNumber and the timespan ISO-8601/default P30D rules are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one Microsoft Sentinel incident') and scopes it to a single incident, which implicitly contrasts with the sibling list_incidents. It goes further to name the payload contents (alerts and the account, IP and host entities), so an agent knows exactly what this returns versus a list call.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied: 'Get one ... incident' suggests fetching detail for a known incident number, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion naming list_incidents as the way to discover incident numbers. The entity_timeline pivot hint is a workflow chaining note rather than a selection rule.

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