Routebase

Get Security Findings

get_security_findings

Read-only

List security findings for the active project, optionally filtered by status, severity, scanner, or a free-text search. Findings are ordered by severity (most severe first). Pass findingId to get one finding in full, including the raw evidence the scanner captured (request and response) — that blob is omitted from the list to keep it small. Requires project context.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`skip`	No	Number of findings to skip (for pagination, default 0)
`take`	No	Number of findings to return (default 50, max 100)
`search`	No	Free-text search over finding title/description
`status`	No	Filter by status: 'open', 'inProgress', 'fixed', 'falsePositive', 'acceptedRisk', 'duplicate' (omit for all)
`severity`	No	Filter by severity: 'info', 'low', 'medium', 'high', 'critical' (omit for all)
`findingId`	No	Public Id (Guid) of a single finding. When given, the filters are ignored.
`scannerId`	No	Filter by scanner id (omit for all scanners)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate read-only. The description goes beyond by explaining that the list omits the raw evidence blob to keep it small, and that passing findingId returns it. This adds useful behavioral details without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences with no fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and details are organized logically (filters, ordering, single-finding mode, project context).

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: what is returned, ordering, the difference between list and single-finding responses, and the prerequisite of project context.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The tool description adds higher-level semantics: explains the filter combinations, the ordering by severity, and the special behavior of findingId overriding filters.

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 lists security findings for the active project, mentions optional filters, and explains the single-finding mode with full evidence. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying project context and the ability to retrieve a full finding.

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?

Provides clear context: requires project context, explains when to pass findingId to get full details, and notes filters are optional. Does not explicitly compare with alternative tools, but gives sufficient guidance for when to use it.

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

All Routebase tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.

Tool Count1/5

With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.

Resources

Need Help?