Sentinel Solutions MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the default limit of 100 results, which is useful, but doesn't cover critical aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens when filters yield no results. For a tool with 11 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 conveys the core functionality, filtering options, and result limit. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary verbiage. However, it could be slightly more concise by omitting the repetition of 'search by' and 'or' in the filter list.

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 complexity (11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only vs. mutative, error handling), doesn't explain the return format or structure, and omits guidance on parameter interactions. For a tool with this many parameters and no structured support, the description should provide more operational details.

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 11 parameters. The description adds value by listing the filtering criteria (solution, tactic, technique, name, query content, file path), which maps to 6 of the parameters, and mentions the default limit, which corresponds to the 'limit' parameter. However, it doesn't explain the purpose of parameters like 'force_refresh', 'repository_owner', 'repository_name', or 'repository_branch' beyond what the schema names imply. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does most of the work.

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 hunting queries'), making the purpose evident. It specifies the filtering criteria (solution, tactic, technique, name, query content, file path) and the default result limit. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'list_exploration_queries' or 'list_detections', which might have overlapping functionality in the same domain.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, dependencies, or compare it to sibling tools like 'list_exploration_queries' or 'search_solutions'. The agent is left to infer usage based on the tool name and description alone.

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