Get detailed, step-by-step remediation guidance for a specific vulnerability or security issue (e.g. "missing Content-Security-Policy header", "SQL injection", a CVE id). Returns actionable fixes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| issue | Yes | The vulnerability, finding title, or CVE id to fix. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states 'Returns actionable fixes,' but does not confirm read-only safety, authorization requirements, or potential side effects, leaving a significant gap for agents.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant words. Every element—the verb, resource, examples, and return statement—contributes meaning.
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?
The tool is simple (one parameter) and the description covers its purpose well. However, with no output schema, the vague 'Returns actionable fixes' does not specify output format or structure, and there is no mention of edge cases or prerequisites, leaving some ambiguity.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the 'issue' parameter. The description adds value by providing concrete examples (e.g., 'missing Content-Security-Policy header', 'SQL injection', 'CVE id'), which enrich the schema's generic description and help agents understand valid inputs.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and a clear resource ('detailed, step-by-step remediation guidance'), with concrete examples of issue types. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like lookup_cves or scan_website, which focus on identification rather than remediation.
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 appropriate usage—when a specific vulnerability or security issue needs remediation steps—but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives. The context is clear but lacks direct exclusions or comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are mostly distinct: billing, scanning websites, scanning AI agents, CVE lookup, and remediation guidance all serve clear separate purposes. The main overlap is between compliance_report and scan_website, both assessing sites but from different angles; however descriptions clarify the distinction.
Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (buy_credits, check_credits, get_fix_guidance, get_pricing, lookup_cves, scan_agent, scan_website). 'compliance_report' is a noun phrase rather than a verb action, slight deviation but not confusing.
8 tools is well-scoped for a security scanning service. Each tool covers a necessary function: billing, pricing, scanning, compliance, CVE lookup, and remediation guidance, without unnecessary bloat.
The surface provides core lifecycle coverage for the domain: scanning (web and AI agent), compliance assessment, vulnerability intelligence, fix guidance, and credit management. Minor gaps exist like scan history or saved reports, but the tools handle real-time needs without dead ends.