Query Windows event logs by event ID, time range, provider, or text to return flattened event data for forensic analysis.
Query a Windows .evtx log: filter by event IDs, time range (ISO, image timezone), provider, or text; returns flattened event data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | No | ||
| ref | No | ||
| part | No | ||
| image | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| start | No | ||
| contains | No | ||
| provider | No | ||
| event_ids | No | ||
| local_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format ('flattened event data') and implies read-only via 'Query', but does not state permissions, pagination/limit behavior, or explicit non-destructive safety.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; each clause adds either filter capability or return-format information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 10-parameter forensic query with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits how to specify the .evtx source (local_path/ref/part/image) and gives no usage guidance, leaving key invocation details missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% across 10 parameters. The description names filter categories (event IDs, time range, provider, text) but leaves ref, part, image, limit, and local_path unexplained, so an agent cannot fully determine source selection or pagination.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('Query') and resource ('Windows .evtx log'), and lists the main filter dimensions. Clear, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling forensic tools such as timeline or find.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no prerequisites are provided. The resource implies the domain, but the description does not say when this tool is preferred over siblings or what source selection is required.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.