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 effectively describes key behaviors: it's a search/list operation (implied non-destructive), specifies a default result limit (100), and mentions searchable fields. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or pagination, which would be helpful for a tool with potential large datasets.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and key details. Every word earns its place by specifying the resource, search criteria, and behavioral constraint (max 100 results), with zero waste or redundancy.

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/search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does, search parameters, and a key behavioral constraint (default limit). However, it could benefit from mentioning the return format or any authentication requirements to be fully comprehensive.

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 parameters. The description adds context by mentioning the searchable fields (solution, name, query content, file path) and the default limit, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema implies. 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 specific action ('List') and resource ('Microsoft Sentinel saved functions'), distinguishing it from siblings by focusing on functions rather than other Sentinel artifacts like detections, workbooks, or connectors. It provides a precise scope that differentiates it from other list tools in the sibling set.

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 the mention of search criteria (solution, name, query content, file path) and the default limit of 100 results, suggesting it's for filtered listing. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_detections or list_workbooks, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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