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 usefully adds the 'max 100 results by default' constraint, which is important operational context. However, it doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication might be required, potential rate limits, or how results are structured. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 the core functionality, search parameters, and result limitation. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's moderate complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose and search capabilities but lacks information about return format, error conditions, authentication requirements, and how it differs from similar listing tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain what gets returned.

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 search capabilities that map to some parameters (solution, name, query_contains, path_contains) and implies the limit parameter with 'max 100 results by default', but doesn't add meaningful semantic context beyond what the schema provides. 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 verb ('List') and resource ('Microsoft Sentinel summary rules'), making the purpose specific and understandable. It distinguishes from some siblings by focusing on summary rules, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like list_detections or list_workbooks that might have similar listing functionality.

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 context by mentioning search capabilities ('search by solution, name, query content, or file path'), which suggests when this tool might be appropriate. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like list_detections or search_solutions, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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