List prominent Event IDs for a specific Windows log channel—Security, System, PowerShell, or Sysmon—to prioritize forensic review of significant events.
List important Event IDs for a log channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| channel | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states the tool lists event IDs, which implies a read operation. However, it does not specify the format of the output, whether the list is exhaustive or curated, or any side effects. For a simple listing tool, the description is minimally transparent.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's purpose.
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 simplicity (one required enum parameter, no output schema), the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what 'important' means, how the IDs are determined, or what the output looks like. For a tool that likely returns a list of integers, more context would help an agent gauge its utility.
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?
The description does not mention the 'channel' parameter or its enum values. The input schema fully defines the parameter with an enum, but the description adds no additional meaning, such as examples or context for what 'important' means per channel. Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but does not.
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 action ('List') and the resource ('important Event IDs for a log channel'). It distinguishes from siblings like evtx_explain_event_id which explains a single event ID, and evtx_search which searches events, by focusing on listing important predefined IDs for a given channel.
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 does not mention specific use cases, prerequisites, or under what conditions this tool is preferred over siblings like evtx_explain_event_id or evtx_get_stats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.