Orders supplied vulnerability findings into a reviewable, severity-based attack chain so pentesters can prioritize and validate exploit paths.
Order caller-supplied findings into a reviewable severity-based attack chain.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| findings | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 full behavioral burden. It discloses that input is caller-supplied and output is a severity-based ordered chain, but it does not explain ordering logic, side effects, permissions, or rate limits.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action and result immediately.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the input schema is opaque and annotations are absent; the description does not specify what a 'finding' must contain or how severity is derived, leaving the agent under-informed for correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0% and the sole parameter is an array of unconstrained objects. The description labels it 'caller-supplied findings', which gives minimal semantic context, but it does not describe the expected finding structure, severity field, or required keys.
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 states a clear verb ('order') and resource ('caller-supplied findings'), plus the output form ('reviewable severity-based attack chain'). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling findings-oriented tools such as websex_finding_report or websex_scan_summary.
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?
No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The description implies the tool is used once findings already exist, but it does not say when to choose it over sibling tools like websex_finding_report or websex_scan_summary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.