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

azure-query-mcp

by kapetanios55
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

list_hunting_queries

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists available threat-hunting queries, including built-in and custom queries from AZURE_QUERY_MCP_HUNTING_DIR, with their MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.

Instructions

List the available threat-hunting queries (built-in plus any loaded from AZURE_QUERY_MCP_HUNTING_DIR) with their MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_hunting_queries"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by disclosing provenance (built-in catalog plus a configurable directory via AZURE_QUERY_MCP_HUNTING_DIR) and the shape of each entry (MITRE ATT&CK tactics and techniques), which the annotations cannot express.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, provenance and return contents; no filler or repetition of annotation data.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the agent gets back (queries with MITRE tactics/techniques) and where they come from. Minor gap: it doesn't say whether results are paginated or grouped, though for a static catalog that is low-stakes.

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

Parameters4/5

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; baseline 4 applies. The empty schema is consistent with a parameterless catalog listing.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('List the available threat-hunting queries') and adds scope (built-in plus those loaded from AZURE_QUERY_MCP_HUNTING_DIR). It implicitly distinguishes itself from run_hunting_query by being a catalog listing, but never names that sibling explicitly.

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: the description says what is listed but never states when to call it (e.g. 'use before run_hunting_query to discover valid query names') or any exclusions. An agent must infer the discovery-versus-execution split with run_hunting_query from the sibling name alone.

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