Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
F6 ASM MCP Server

F6 ASM MCP Server

Official
by F6-Security
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

asm_get_issue_evidence

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves scanner evidence for a specific issue ID, including response headers, banners, certificates, and DNS records, to verify what the scanner observed.

Instructions

Evidence of one issue: GET /api/v2/issues/evidence/{issue_id} — what the scanner saw (response headers, banner, certificate, DNS records). issue_id is the alertHash from asm_get_issues.

Tool call template

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": {
      "issue_id": "<issue_id>"
    },
    "name": "asm_get_issue_evidence"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_idYesIssue id (alertHash, 32 hex digits).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds material context those annotations do not: the specific evidence categories returned (headers, banner, certificate, DNS records), which is valuable given there is no output schema. No disclosure of auth requirements or empty-result behavior.

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?

One dense sentence with the endpoint and payload front-loaded and a second clause for the parameter source; no filler, no restatement of the tool name.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With one required parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential need by enumerating what the evidence contains. Only edge-case behavior (issue with no recorded evidence, response size) is left unaddressed.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents the alertHash format, so the baseline is 3. The description adds provenance beyond the schema by tying the value to asm_get_issues, which is genuinely useful for constructing the parameter correctly.

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 names a specific verb+resource ('Evidence of one issue') and even gives the underlying endpoint and the concrete payload ('response headers, banner, certificate, DNS records'), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves rather than guessing from the name. It is clearly distinct from list-level siblings like asm_get_issues or asm_get_assets.

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?

It establishes the workflow prerequisite by stating that issue_id is the alertHash from asm_get_issues, which tells the agent to resolve an issue first. It does not state when NOT to use it or what happens for issues without evidence, so it falls short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools