Retrieve compliance findings from a completed GuardBee scan, optionally filtered by severity to focus on critical issues.
Get compliance findings from a completed GuardBee scan, optionally filtered by severity
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scanId | Yes | Scan ID returned by check_compliance | |
| severity | No | Filter by severity | |
| framework | No | Framework label for the report header |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.5Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v0.1.1Does 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 implies a read-only retrieval from a completed scan but does not describe return format, pagination, permissions, or rate limits; this is adequate but not rich.
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 wasted words. It presents the source and optional filter efficiently.
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 simple three-parameter retrieval tool with complete schema descriptions, the definition covers the key prerequisite and filter. It lacks return-value context, but no output schema exists and the core invocation information is present.
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 100%, and the schema explains scanId, severity, and framework. The description only reinforces the optional severity filter, so it adds little beyond the already rich schema.
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 ('Get') and resource ('compliance findings') with its source ('completed GuardBee scan') and an optional severity filter. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling check_compliance tool, which initiates a scan, because it requires a completed scan and scanId.
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?
The description makes the prerequisite clear: the scan must be completed, and the schema notes scanId comes from check_compliance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use it, but the usage context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.