Sentinel Solutions MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the default result limit (max 100 results) which is valuable behavioral information. However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether this is a read-only operation (though 'list' implies reading). More behavioral context would be helpful given the lack of annotations.

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 efficiently communicates purpose, filterable attributes, and a key behavioral constraint (max 100 results). Every word earns its place with no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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 list/filter tool with 13 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the core purpose and key constraint (result limit), but lacks information about return format, pagination, error conditions, or how filters combine. Given the parameter count and absence of both annotations and output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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 already documents all 13 parameters. The description adds value by listing specific filterable attributes (solution, severity, tactic, technique, name, query content, file path) which helps understand parameter purposes, but doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 filter') and resource ('Microsoft Sentinel detection rules (analytics)'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_detection_details' by focusing on listing/filtering rather than retrieving detailed information about a single detection.

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 through listing filterable attributes (solution, severity, etc.), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_solutions' or 'get_detection_details'. It provides context about what can be filtered but lacks explicit guidance on tool selection scenarios.

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