Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
F6 ASM MCP Server

F6 ASM MCP Server

Official
by F6-Security
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

asm_issues_summary

Read-onlyIdempotent

Count a company's security issues by severity, status, asset type, category, test, top assets, and top CVEs to prioritize remediation; defaults to open issues.

Instructions

Counts over the issues of a company, no records: by severity, status, asset type, category, test name, top assets and top CVEs. Default status: open (detected, under review). Same background mechanism as asm_assets_summary for large companies.

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": {
      "company_id": "<company_id>"
    },
    "name": "asm_issues_summary"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assetNoOnly issues of these assets.
statusNoDefault: open issues ['detected', 'under review']. Pass every status for history.
severityNocrit / high / medium / low. In records they read as alertSeverity Crit / Error / Warning / Low and alertBody.status 'Critical severity' / 'High severity' / ...
company_idYesCompany id from asm_list_companies (field id), e.g. 3f2b6c1e-0000-4a5b-8c9d-0123456789ab.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the default status filter silently excludes solved/ignored/false-positive issues, and large companies use a 'background mechanism' like asm_assets_summary. That last point is the most important behavioral disclosure but is left vague — it does not say whether the call blocks, returns a job handle, or must be polled.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the aggregation scope and followed by the one non-obvious default. No filler. Minor deduction for slightly awkward phrasing ('Counts over the issues') and for the trailing cross-reference to asm_assets_summary, which forces the reader to open another definition to understand the async behavior.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description effectively lists the aggregation buckets that come back, so an agent can anticipate the response shape. Combined with 100% schema coverage and full annotations, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; the only real hole is the unspecified mechanics of the 'background mechanism' for large companies.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters, including the default status set and the enum values. The description reinforces the status default and adds the 'pass every status for history' advice, but adds nothing about asset or severity semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the load.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Counts over the issues of a company') and immediately scopes it as aggregate-only ('no records'), which separates it from a record-returning sibling like asm_get_issues. It also enumerates the breakdown dimensions (severity, status, asset type, category, test name, top assets, top CVEs), so the agent knows exactly what kind of answer to expect.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives useful behavioral guidance on the status filter ('Default status: open', 'Pass every status for history'), which is real usage direction. However, it never explicitly says when to choose this over asm_get_issues or asm_get_assets_summary; the 'no records' phrasing implies the split but leaves the agent to infer it.

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