Sentinel Solutions MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions a key constraint ('Returns max 100 results by default'), which is valuable. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or the return format (e.g., structure of results), leaving gaps for a tool with 8 parameters.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality and a key constraint. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 tool with 8 parameters and no annotations or output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and a result limit, but lacks details on authentication, error cases, return structure, or how parameters interact, which could hinder effective use by an AI agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 8 parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning search capabilities ('search by type, name, or file path'), which aligns with some parameters, but doesn't provide additional syntax, format, or usage details beyond what the schema already defines.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List Microsoft Sentinel ASIM (Advanced Security Information Model) content' with specific search capabilities ('search by type, name, or file path'). It distinguishes itself from generic 'list' tools by specifying ASIM content, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling tools like 'list_parsers' which might overlap.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_parsers' or 'search_solutions' that might serve similar purposes, nor does it specify prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions for usage.

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