Sentinel Solutions MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.4
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool targets a distinct type of Microsoft Sentinel resource (e.g., solutions, connectors, detections, workbooks, etc.) with clear descriptions. The many list_* tools are differentiated by the specific content type they handle, preventing confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., list_detections, get_solution_details, analyze_solutions). No mixing of styles or ambiguous verbs, making the naming predictable.
Tool Count4/5
With 23 tools, the count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range but justified by the broad domain of Microsoft Sentinel. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the number is not excessive for the scope covered.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides comprehensive read and analysis capabilities for Sentinel solutions, including listing, getting details, searching, and validating. For the stated purpose of analyzing solutions, it covers all necessary operations without obvious gaps.
Average 3.1/5 across 23 of 23 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on December 8, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is passing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims 'Returns max 100 results by default,' but the input schema shows limit defaults to 1000, creating a direct contradiction. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure, yet it fails to mention pagination, caching, error handling, or the purpose of parameters like force_refresh and repository_*.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but contains an inaccuracy (100 vs 1000 limit). It front-loads the purpose but wastes no words, though the error reduces overall value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and eight parameters undocumented in the schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain output format, pagination, or the use of repository-related parameters, and the limit contradiction further undermines the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for only three parameters (solution, name, file path) out of eight listed in the schema. The limit, force_refresh, repository_owner, repository_name, and repository_branch parameters are left unexplained. With no schema descriptions, the description only partially compensates.
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 lists Microsoft Sentinel playbooks (Logic Apps) and specifies search filters (solution, name, file path), making the purpose immediately obvious and distinct from sibling tools like list_dashboards or list_detections.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., search_solutions or get_solution_details). It only implies usage for listing playbooks with filters, but no context on when not to use it or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It claims 'max 100 results by default', but the input schema shows a limit parameter with default 1000, a serious contradiction. Additionally, it omits behavioral traits like pagination, caching, and the effect of force_refresh.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it contains a factual contradiction (max 100 vs schema default 1000). The contradiction wastes the agent's trust.
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?
For a listing tool with 8 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description fails to cover return format, pagination, or the meaning of repository fields. The contradictory limit reduces completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for three parameters (solution, name, path_contains) by indicating they are search fields. However, it ignores five other parameters including limit (with contradictory info) and repository fields. The misleading limit statement further reduces value.
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 it lists 'Microsoft Sentinel dashboards', providing a specific verb and resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_workbooks, but lacks explicit differentiation.
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?
The description mentions search capabilities (by solution, name, or file path), implying usage to find dashboards, but gives no guidance on when to use this tool over other list_* tools or any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description states 'Returns max 100 results by default' which contradicts the input schema's default value of 1000 for the limit parameter. This is a significant factual error. With no annotations, the description fails to accurately convey behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficient but contains a factual error (max 100 vs default 1000). It front-loads the action and search fields, but the error undermines conciseness.
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?
Given no output schema, 8 parameters, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the repository-related parameters (owner, name, branch) and force_refresh. It also does not describe the return format or pagination behavior beyond the misleading limit.
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?
The description explains three parameters (solution, name, path_contains) by mentioning them as search fields, adding meaning beyond the schema which lacks descriptions. However, it omits explanation for other parameters like limit (despite mentioning default max), force_refresh, repository_owner, repository_name, repository_branch.
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 'List Microsoft Sentinel Jupyter notebooks' with specific search filters (solution, name, file path), distinguishing it from other list tools in the server. However, it could be slightly more specific about the resource context.
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?
The description implies usage for searching notebooks by specified fields, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, or any prerequisites or limitations beyond the default limit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions search criteria and a default limit but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, cache behavior, pagination, or rate limits. Additionally, the default limit in the description conflicts with the schema, further reducing transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence. It is concise but contains an inaccuracy regarding the default limit, which detracts from its effectiveness.
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?
Given the tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain force_refresh, repository filtering, pagination behavior, or the actual default limit. An agent cannot fully understand how to use the tool without inspecting the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, but the description only explains three parameters (category, name, path_contains) and partially explains limit (with a wrong default). It omits force_refresh, repository_owner, repository_name, and repository_branch entirely. Thus, the description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.
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 the tool lists Microsoft Sentinel tools and utilities and allows searching by category, name, or file path. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_detections and list_workbooks by specifying 'tools and utilities'. However, there is a minor inconsistency: the description mentions 'Returns max 100 results by default' but the schema default for limit is 1000.
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?
The description implies usage via search capabilities but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it specify when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It claims 'detailed information' but does not specify what data is returned (e.g., workbook content, metadata). Does not mention side effects, but as a GET operation likely none.
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?
Single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Appropriate length for a simple tool.
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?
No output schema, so description should explain 'detailed information' content. Also, five parameters exist (including optional ones like repository_owner) with no explanation of their purpose, which is insufficient for an AI agent to use correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, providing parameter names and types. The description adds no additional meaning; for example, 'force_refresh' is not explained. Baseline of 3 is appropriate with high schema coverage.
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 the action ('get detailed information') and resource ('specific workbook'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tool 'list_workbooks' which lists workbooks, leaving ambiguity about how 'detailed information' differs from basic metadata.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like 'list_workbooks' or 'analyze_solutions'. Does not mention prerequisites or context for using the optional parameters.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims 'Returns max 100 results by default' but the schema shows a default of 1000 for the limit parameter. This contradiction misleads. Additionally, force_refresh and repository parameters are not mentioned, omitting important behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence, but the limit default discrepancy reduces clarity. Front-loading is good.
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?
Given no annotations or output schema, the description should cover pagination, default limits, caching (force_refresh), and repository filtering. It fails to address these, leaving the agent underinformed.
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 coverage is 100% but the description only maps to solution, name, query_contains, and path_contains. Repository parameters and force_refresh are omitted, leaving gaps. The description adds some value but not full compensation.
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 the tool lists Microsoft Sentinel exploration queries and specifies searchable fields (solution, name, query content, file path). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_hunting_queries, but the resource type is distinct.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many list tools available, the agent lacks criteria to choose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description claims a default max of 100 results, but the schema default is 1000, which is a factual contradiction. No other behavioral traits disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, efficient but contains an inaccuracy regarding the default limit.
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?
No annotations or output schema. The description does not mention read-only behavior, pagination details, or result structure, leaving significant gaps for a listing 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?
The description adds meaning to parameters like solution, name, query_contains, and path_contains, but omits limit, force_refresh, and repository fields. Schema parameters lack descriptions, so the description provides moderate additional context.
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 the tool lists Microsoft Sentinel saved functions and indicates search parameters. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like list_parsers or list_tables.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only states the basic action. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as what happens on invalid input, side effects, or limitations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly enriched to improve structure.
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?
Given the lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what 'extract tables' means or what the return value looks like, leaving gaps.
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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter. The description adds 'connector JSON definition' which is slightly more descriptive but essentially repeats the schema. Baseline score is appropriate.
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 the action (validate) and the resource (connector JSON definition), and mentions an additional function (extract tables). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_data_connectors and get_connector_tables.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites or context, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims a default max of 100 results, but the input schema sets the default limit to 1000, creating a direct contradiction. No other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, access requirements) are disclosed, and annotations are absent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with two sentences, front-loading the purpose and search criteria. However, the limit discrepancy detracts from clarity and accuracy.
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?
Given the no output schema and many parameters, the description is incomplete. It omits the purpose of the repository and force_refresh parameters, does not describe the return format, and contains a factual error about the limit default.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description only covers 3 of 8 parameters (connector_type, name, path_contains), leaving 5 undocumented. With low schema description coverage, the description does not compensate by explaining the missing parameters or providing additional context beyond the schema.
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 action (list), the resource (Microsoft Sentinel data connectors), and the search criteria (by connector type, name, or file path). It also provides a default limit, making the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools.
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?
The description mentions search criteria but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other list tools). There is no guidance on when not to use it or context about prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims a default max of 100 results, but the input schema shows a limit parameter with default 1000. This is a clear contradiction that misinforms the agent. No annotations are present to compensate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that states the core function and search options. However, the inaccuracy about the limit default detracts from its effectiveness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description covers search functionality and a default limit (though wrong), but omits details about output format, pagination, or ordering. It is adequate but not complete for a list 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 indicated as 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context for search fields (solution, name, query_contains, path_contains) but inaccurately describes the limit default, reducing its value.
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 the tool lists Microsoft Sentinel parsers (KQL functions) and mentions search capabilities by multiple criteria. It is specific but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_functions.
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?
The description implies usage when needing to search parsers by solution, name, query content, or file path, but provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic function and fails to disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, output format, or authentication requirements.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the action. Every word earns its place with no 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?
Given three optional parameters, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is too sparse. It omits information about return values, pagination, and error handling, which is insufficient for complete understanding.
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% (baseline 3). The description adds meaning for 'query' and 'publisher' but ignores 'support_tier', so it partially compensates but does not fully enhance understanding.
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 verb 'search' and resource 'solutions', and specifies searchable fields (name, publisher, keyword), distinguishing it from sibling tools like analyze_solutions or get_solution_details.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context on prerequisites or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions the default return limit (max 100 results) but fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, requires authentication, or how force_refresh affects results. More behavioral context is needed.
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 concise, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and a key behavioral trait. Every phrase is necessary and serves a clear purpose.
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?
Given 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks explanation of what ASIM content encompasses, the return format, pagination behavior, and the effect of force_refresh. A more comprehensive description is needed for adequate context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Although schema coverage is stated as 100%, the description only covers three parameters (type, name, path_contains) while ignoring limit, force_refresh, and repository parameters. Additionally, the description claims 'Returns max 100 results by default' but the schema shows default 1000 for limit, creating a contradiction. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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 verb 'List', the resource 'Microsoft Sentinel ASIM (Advanced Security Information Model) content', and specifies filtering options (type, name, or file path) and a default limit. The tool is distinct from sibling tools that list other types of content (e.g., list_parsers, list_dashboards).
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_parsers or search_solutions. The description does not include any use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Mentions maximum results (though inconsistent with schema default) and search filters, but lacks details on authorization, rate limits, pagination, or return format. No annotations to supplement.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with purpose, but contains a numerical discrepancy (100 vs 1000 default limit) that reduces clarity.
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?
For a tool with 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. Missing details on several parameters, default behavior, and output structure.
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?
Description adds meaning for 4 of 9 parameters (solution, name, query_contains, path_contains). The other 5 parameters are not described, and the schema provides only types, not descriptions.
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?
Clearly states it lists Microsoft Sentinel summary rules, with specific search options. Distinguishes from sibling list tools by resource type.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Siblings include many list tools, but no conditions or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions max 100 results but default limit in schema is 1000, creating contradiction. Does not describe side effects, rate limits, or whether it's read-only. Missing details on force_refresh and repository parameters.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose. However, the default limit contradiction reduces clarity.
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?
With no output schema, many parameters not explained, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior and outcomes.
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?
Description adds meaning for three filter parameters (solution, name, path_contains), but ignores limit, force_refresh, repository fields. Schema coverage is 100% but lacks descriptions, so description partially compensates.
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?
Clearly states it lists Microsoft Sentinel watchlists and lists filtering options. Distinguishes from sibling list tools like list_detections or list_workbooks by specific resource.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention when not to use or provide context on prerequisites or intended usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description claims 'Returns max 100 results by default', but the input schema shows a limit parameter with default value 1000. This is a direct contradiction. No annotations are provided, so the description must be relied upon, and it is misleading.
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 concise sentence that conveys purpose, filter options, and a key behavioral trait. No unnecessary text.
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?
Given the complexity (11 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of parameters like force_refresh, repository_owner, repository_name, repository_branch, and does not describe the response format. The contradiction with default limit also harms completeness.
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 coverage is 100% (all 11 parameters are described in the schema). The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond naming filter options and mentioning the default limit, but the limit description contradicts the schema. Baseline of 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 verb 'List and filter' and the resource 'Microsoft Sentinel hunting queries'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the unique resource type.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The usage is implied by the resource name, but lacking context for when to prefer this over other list tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only says 'run full analysis' but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, how it affects the system, or any authentication or rate limit requirements. This is insufficient for an agent to assess side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with 12 words, achieving high conciseness. It front-loads the main action. However, it could include a bit more context without becoming verbose, so it is not a 5.
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?
Despite low complexity in parameters (all optional), the tool's purpose is broad ('full analysis') and has no output schema. The description does not explain what the analysis entails, what format the output takes, or how it relates to sibling tools. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to invoke correctly.
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%, meaning all parameters are defined in the schema. However, the description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema definitions. The baseline is 3 for high coverage, and the description does not elevate it.
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's purpose: 'Run full analysis on all Microsoft Sentinel solutions, extracting connector-table mappings.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings like get_connector_tables and search_solutions.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when to choose analyze_solutions over get_connector_tables or search_solutions, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Get detailed information' suggests a read-only operation with no side effects. This is standard for a get tool, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., caching, dependencies) are disclosed. The description does not contradict any annotations since none exist.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise but may be too brief. It conveys the core purpose without waste, but given the complexity of parameters and siblings, it could be slightly more informative while still being efficient.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the return value (e.g., structure of detailed information), parameter relationships (e.g., repository fields for scoping), or any preconditions. A more complete description would mention output type or parameter usage hints.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no meaning to the input schema parameters. Although schema coverage is high (field names exist), the description does not explain the purpose of 'force_refresh', 'repository_owner', etc. A tool with 5 parameters would benefit from at least a brief parameter description, even if just listing the key ones.
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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'detailed information about a specific detection rule'. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'list_detections', which would return a list of rules. The specificity of 'a specific detection rule' implies a single resource, aligning with the required detection_id parameter.
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?
The description implies usage when details of a specific detection rule are needed, contrasting with list operations. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. The context of sibling tools like 'list_detections' suggests natural differentiation, but the description itself lacks direct usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It does not disclose auth requirements, performance implications, or what happens when no tables exist, beyond a simple read operation.
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, well-structured sentence with no unnecessary words, front-loading the core purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
While the tool is simple and lacks an output schema, the description omits mention of the filtering parameter, which is important context for an agent to use the tool effectively.
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 coverage is 100%, and the single parameter (table_type) is fully defined in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning, meeting the baseline of 3.
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 provides a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('all unique tables across all solutions'), clearly distinguishing this tool from siblings like list_detections or list_workbooks.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_connector_tables, nor any context about prerequisites or restrictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses max 100 results by default, but this contradicts the schema's limit default of 1000. No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. The contradiction undermines transparency. No other behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, auth needs).
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, each adding distinct value: purpose and primary usage. No fluff. Well front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers listing and search, but lacks details on return format, pagination, or behavior of other parameters. The limit discrepancy with schema creates confusion. Adequate for simple tool but incomplete.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds minimal context by mentioning search by name or file path mapping to 'name' and 'path_contains', but does not explain other parameters like 'force_refresh' or repository fields. Adequate but not enriching.
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 it lists Microsoft Sentinel tutorials and learning resources with search capability. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other resources (e.g., dashboards, detections). However, it could be more specific about the resource type.
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?
The description implies usage for listing tutorials, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to similar tools like 'list_dashboards' or 'list_detections'. The search-by fields are mentioned but no alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without mentioning side effects, permissions, caching, or rate limits, which is minimal disclosure for a read operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with no fluff. Efficient but could be slightly improved by front-loading the key action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Adequate for a simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, but lacks information about what the table mappings contain or return format.
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?
Input schema has 100% coverage with one parameter. Description adds that it is 'for a specific connector ID', but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema.
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 action 'Get', resource 'table mappings', and scope 'for a specific connector ID', distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_tables or list_data_connectors.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use or when not to use this tool. The description implies usage when needing table mappings for a connector, but lacks exclusions or alternatives compared to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds behavioral context ('fast', 'only analyzes requested') beyond the name, but does not disclose return format, read-only nature, or potential side effects. Adequate but not thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loading the purpose. It is concise and clear, though could benefit from structured enumeration of return fields or usage hints.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states purpose and a key behavioral trait (speed) but lacks details on return shape, errors, permissions, or when to prefer siblings.
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?
The schema has one parameter (solution_name) with 100% coverage. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., valid values or format). Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema covers the parameter fully.
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 gets detailed information about a specific solution, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_solutions or analyze_solutions by emphasizing speed and targeted analysis.
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?
The description implies use for a single solution (via 'only analyzes requested solution') but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like search_solutions or analyze_solutions. No exclusions or contextual cues are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description bears full weight. It mentions result limit (max 100) and filter options. However, it omits whether the operation is read-only, authentication needs, or pagination behavior. The limit number contradicts schema (default 1000). Some behavioral context but insufficient.
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?
Single sentence with key action and filter details. Front-loaded with purpose. No fluff or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a list tool with 0 required params and no output schema, the description should explain return fields, pagination, sorting. It only gives a limit hint (contradictory). Missing details on how filters combine (AND/OR) and what default ordering is. Adequate for basic use but incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 100% (all params declared), but description only mentions 4 of 9 params (solution, category, name, path_contains) and omits limit, force_refresh, repository_* fields. Worse, description states 'max 100 results' while schema default for limit is 1000 – a direct contradiction. This misleads the agent about behavior.
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?
Leads with 'List and filter Microsoft Sentinel workbooks' – clear verb and resource. Lists filterable fields (solution, category, name, file path). Distinct from siblings like get_workbook_details (single workbook) and list_dashboards (different resource).
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?
Implied usage: use when you need to list workbooks with filters. But no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among many sibling list tools. 'Returns max 100 results' gives a constraint but no when-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It notes the 100-result default limit but does not state read-only status, side effects, or pagination. This is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core functionality and key searchable fields, with no wasted words.
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 of multiple filter parameters and no output schema, the description provides essential context (max results, filter fields). It's complete enough for an agent to select and use the tool, though sorting or ordering is not mentioned.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by listing the fields (solution, severity, tactic, etc.) that can be used for filtering, helping an agent understand parameter purposes beyond schema names.
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 identifies the tool as listing and filtering Microsoft Sentinel detection rules, with a specific verb 'list' and explicit resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools that list other entities like workbooks or playbooks.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_detection_details (for a single rule) or list_hunting_queries. The mention of max 100 results provides some expectation but lacks alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sentinel-solutions-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/noodlemctwoodle/sentinel-solutions-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/noodlemctwoodle/sentinel-solutions-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![sentinel-solutions-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/noodlemctwoodle/sentinel-solutions-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/noodlemctwoodle/sentinel-solutions-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/noodlemctwoodle/sentinel-solutions-mcp'

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