Fetch one Dynatrace security problem by ID to review its risk assessment, affected entities, and remediation details.
One vulnerability with risk assessment, affected entities and remediation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| security_problem_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating returned content, but says nothing about behavior when the ID is unknown, whether remediation is static advice or live data, or any latency/scope constraints.
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 tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It reads as a noun phrase fragment rather than a statement of action, which costs it a point, but nothing is wasted.
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?
With no output schema, the description does partial duty by sketching the return contents. For a one-parameter read tool this is close to adequate, but the missing ID format and not-found behavior leave real gaps.
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 description never mentions the single required parameter. It does not say whether security_problem_id is an opaque ID, a numeric key, or a name, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented 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?
The description names the resource ('one vulnerability') and the content the call returns (risk assessment, affected entities, remediation), which is specific enough to distinguish it from the plural sibling list_security_problems. It lacks an explicit verb and drifts between 'security problem' and 'vulnerability', but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no alternative named. The agent must infer on its own that list_security_problems should be used to discover IDs before calling this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.