Transition a finding to open, review_requested, resolved, or dismissed status to manage its lifecycle.
Transition a finding to a new status: "open" (active), "review_requested" (escalated to a human/agent reviewer), "resolved" (fixed), or "dismissed" (intentionally ignored / false positive).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| status | Yes | New status: open | review_requested | resolved | dismissed |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the mutation nature is already surfaced. The description adds useful semantics about what each status means but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as validation behavior, side effects, or permission requirements. With annotations carrying the safety profile, 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 sentence with zero wasted words. The core action is front-loaded, and the status definitions are integrated inline without repetition or bloat.
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 status-transition tool with only two parameters and annotations already covering the mutating nature, the description is nearly sufficient. It could be more complete by clarifying the meaning of the 'id' parameter and what the tool returns, but those are minor gaps given the simplicity of the operation.
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 coverage is only 50% (only the status parameter has a schema description), and the description adds meaning beyond the enum by explaining each status value. The 'id' parameter remains undocumented, but it is self-evident from the tool name and context. Overall the description compensates for the low schema coverage on the status parameter.
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 clearly states the specific verb ('Transition') and resource ('a finding') and enumerates the exact statuses. The purpose is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling listing/getting tools like invariance_finding_list and invariance_finding_get.
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 defines when each status should be used ('active', 'escalated to a human/agent reviewer', 'fixed', 'intentionally ignored / false positive'), giving an agent direct guidance on choosing a status value. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for this simple update operation the context is reasonably clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.