sentinelone-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Threats

get_threats

Retrieves recent SentinelOne threats to enable SOC investigation. Returns threat name, storyline, user, computer, status, engines, and process arguments.

Instructions

Fetch recent SentinelOne threats. Returns threatName, storyline, user, computer, status, engines, maliciousProcessArguments, originatorProcess, initiatedByDescription.

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": "get_threats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`limit`	No
`tenant`	No
`sort_order`	No	desc
`incident_status`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds value by enumerating the returned fields, and 'Fetch' implies a read-only operation. However, it does not clarify sorting behavior, pagination, rate limits, or any operational caveats.

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 front-loaded sentence that immediately names the action and resource, followed by a concise, useful list of returned fields. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

The description is incomplete for a tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and multiple closely related sibling tools. It covers return fields but omits parameter meanings and selection guidance, leaving important gaps for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain any of the four parameters: limit, tenant, sort_order, or incident_status. The agent is left with only raw parameter names and types, which is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch recent SentinelOne threats.' It also lists the returned fields, which further clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not differentiate this tool from the sibling tools get_unresolved_threats, get_threat_context, or get_alerts.

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?

The description implies usage when a recent list of threats is needed, but provides no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. Given many threat-related sibling tools exist, an agent cannot determine when to call get_threats versus get_unresolved_threats or get_threat_context.

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

Deploy Server