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 limit (100 results) and mentions search functionality, but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The 'force_refresh' parameter in the schema suggests caching behavior that isn't explained in the description.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence establishes the core functionality and search parameters, while the second adds important behavioral context about the result limit. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and default limit but misses important context about parameter interactions, return format, error handling, and behavioral constraints. The schema does heavy lifting on parameter documentation, but the description should provide more operational guidance.

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 9 parameters. The description mentions 4 search parameters (solution, name, query content, file path) and the default limit, but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. It doesn't explain how the search parameters interact or what 'force_refresh' does.

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 exploration queries' with specific search criteria (solution, name, query content, file path) and a result limit. It distinguishes itself from other list_* tools by specifying 'exploration queries' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_hunting_queries' or other query-related siblings.

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_hunting_queries' or 'search_solutions'. It mentions search capabilities but doesn't indicate when filtering is appropriate or what happens when no parameters are provided. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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