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. It discloses the default result limit ('Returns max 100 results by default'), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention other important traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or pagination behavior, 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 communicates the tool's purpose, search capabilities, and result limit. Every element earns its place with no redundant information, making it easy to parse and understand 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?

Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the core purpose and key parameters but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, return format, or when to use repository parameters. For a list/search tool with multiple filtering options, more context would be helpful.

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 three search parameters ('solution, name, or file path') and the 'limit' default, but does not explain the purpose of other parameters like 'force_refresh' or repository-related fields. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('Microsoft Sentinel dashboards'), and specifies the search capabilities ('search by solution, name, or file path'), making the purpose specific and actionable. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on dashboards rather than other Sentinel resources like detections, workbooks, or notebooks.

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 implies usage for searching dashboards with specific criteria, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_workbooks' or 'list_detections'. It provides context about search parameters but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or prerequisites.

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