rapid7-mcp

search_investigations

Filter InsightIDR investigations by status, priority, assignee, or date range to find the incidents you need.

Instructions

List and filter InsightIDR investigations by status, priority, assignee, or date range

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "search_investigations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`size`	No	Number of results to return (1-100)
`sort`	No	Sort field (e.g., 'created_time' or '-created_time' for descending)
`index`	No	Pagination index
`status`	No	Filter by investigation status
`end_time`	No	Filter investigations created before this ISO 8601 timestamp
`priority`	No	Filter by priority level
`start_time`	No	Filter investigations created after this ISO 8601 timestamp
`assignee_email`	No	Filter by assignee email address

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It mentions listing/filtering but does not state read-only nature, side effects, rate limits, or pagination behavior. As a search tool, it is likely read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of 15 words with no redundancy. Every word contributes meaning.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete. It lists filter categories but omits mention of pagination (index/size) or sorting behavior, which are important for effective use.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds a high-level summary of filter categories but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already offers.

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 verb 'List and filter' and the resource 'InsightIDR investigations', and specifies filtering dimensions (status, priority, assignee, date range). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_investigation (single resource) and list_alerts (different resource).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for listing/filtering investigations but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use or avoid this tool versus alternatives such as get_investigation or search_assets. No exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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