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 valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention pagination, sorting, error conditions, authentication requirements, or rate limits - significant gaps for a listing tool with no annotation coverage.

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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential behavioral information (the 100-result limit). Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or wasted space.

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 listing/search tool with 8 parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and one behavioral constraint (result limit). However, it lacks information about return format, error handling, authentication needs, and doesn't fully explain parameter interactions or search semantics, leaving significant gaps for agent understanding.

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 documents all 8 parameters. The description mentions three search parameters ('connector type, name, or file path') and implies the 'limit' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'force_refresh' or repository-related parameters do. This adds marginal value beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 data connectors'), and specifies search capabilities ('search by connector type, name, or file path'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_connector_tables' or 'validate_connector', which prevents a perfect score.

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 like 'list_tables' or 'get_connector_tables'. It mentions search capabilities but doesn't explain when filtering is appropriate or what distinguishes this listing from other listing tools in the sibling set.

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