Skip to main content
Glama
rijul170

Sophos Central MCP Server

by rijul170

sophos_create_user_attestation

Send a security question to a user's mobile device to verify suspicious activity, such as an unexpected login.

Instructions

Create a user activity attestation — push a security question to a user's Intercept X for Mobile device. Use this to verify whether suspicious activity (e.g. an unexpected login) was performed by the legitimate user. The user receives the question on their mobile device and selects an answer option. Poll the attestation status using sophos_get_user_attestation. Status values: 'pending' (awaiting response), 'completed' (user answered), 'expired' (timed out).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoSpecific fields to include in a partial response (e.g. ['id', 'status'])
optionsNoCustom answer options (max 5). If omitted, default 'yes' and 'no' options are used.
user_idYesUUID of the user to send the attestation to
referenceNoOptional caller-defined reference string returned with the attestation object (alphanumeric, commas, hyphens, slashes, colons; max 256 chars)
tenant_idYesTenant UUID
title_textYesTitle of the attestation question shown on the mobile device (default language, max 100 chars)
question_textYesThe question text shown to the user on their mobile device (max 500 chars)
timeout_in_secondsNoSeconds before the attestation expires (60–86400, default 600). After expiry the attestation becomes read-only.
title_translationsNoOptional translations for the title. Keys are RFC 4646 language tags (e.g. 'de', 'fr'), values are translated text.
question_translationsNoOptional translations for the question. Keys are RFC 4646 language tags (e.g. 'de', 'fr'), values are translated text.
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false (write), destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds behavioral details: the user receives a question and selects an answer, and status values ('pending', 'completed', 'expired') are provided. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured. It starts with the action and purpose, then provides usage guidance, explains the flow, and mentions polling. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (10 params, nested objects) and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the lifecycle (push, poll, status values) and links to the polling sibling tool. It could mention the expected response shape, but the status values partially compensate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., default options are 'yes'/'no', translations, reference), but most parameter details are already in the schema. The description does not significantly enhance semantic understanding beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool 'Create a user activity attestation' and explains its purpose: 'push a security question to a user's Intercept X for Mobile device... verify whether suspicious activity... was performed by the legitimate user.' It distinguishes from the sibling 'sophos_get_user_attestation' by mentioning polling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly tells when to use: 'Use this to verify whether suspicious activity... was performed by the legitimate user.' It also guides the next step: 'Poll the attestation status using sophos_get_user_attestation.' It does not explicitly state when not to use, but the context is clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rijul170/sophos-central-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server