Fetch the evidence pack of one of your scans by scan_id.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"scan_id": "<scan_id>"
},
"name": "burstproof_get_pack"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetch' signals a read-only retrieval and 'your scans' hints at ownership scoping, but there is no disclosure of permission requirements, error behavior for invalid/foreign scan_ids, whether the pack is generated asynchronously, or what the response contains.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and the parameter mention is integrated rather than appended as an afterthought. Nothing wasted.
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?
For a one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should at least sketch what an 'evidence pack' contains and what happens on a missing/not-ready scan. Those gaps remain, though the core call semantics (fetch by scan ID) are clear enough to invoke.
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 0% – the single scan_id property has only a type, no description. The description compensates minimally by naming scan_id and clarifying it identifies one of your own scans, which is more than the schema says. It does not specify the ID format or where the ID comes from (presumably burstproof_scan output).
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?
States a specific verb ('Fetch') and a specific resource ('the evidence pack of one of your scans'), which is enough to distinguish it from the sibling burstproof_scan (which presumably produces a scan). It stops short of naming the sibling or explicitly stating 'use this after burstproof_scan'.
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?
'of one of your scans' and 'by scan_id' imply the tool only makes sense after a scan exists, so usage is implied rather than stated. There are no explicit prerequisites, no when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of what to do if the scan_id is unknown or the pack is not yet ready.
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.