Skip to main content
Glama

list_findings

Lists stored security finding summaries newest first, filtered by status, check, severity, or repo path, with cursor pagination. Use it to triage scanner findings before fetching full code details.

Instructions

List stored finding summaries, newest first.

Filters: status, check, severity, repo_path. limit defaults to 20 and is capped at 100. cursor pages through results. Summaries only: no code in list output, only in get_finding.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_findings"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checkNo
limitNo
cursorNo
statusNo
db_pathNo
severityNo
repo_pathNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.11

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden: it usefully discloses ordering, default limit 20, hard cap 100, cursor pagination, and that code is excluded from output. It does not confirm the operation is read-only and says nothing about which database/store is queried or any access constraints.

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?

Three short lines, front-loaded with purpose, then filters, then paging rules, then the summary-only caveat. No filler, though the line-broken phrasing of the limit rule reads slightly fragmented.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained here, and the description covers paging and filtering adequately for a list tool. The one meaningful omission for a 7-parameter tool is db_path, which could affect correctness in multi-database setups.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it mostly does: it identifies status, check, severity, and repo_path as filters and explains limit defaults/cap and cursor paging semantics. The remaining gap is db_path, which is undocumented in both description and schema.

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 ("List stored finding summaries") plus ordering ("newest first"). It draws a real boundary against get_finding by noting summaries only, no code, though it does not state what a 'finding' is or which store is being listed.

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?

It names the available filters and implies a division of labor with get_finding for full code, but never explicitly says when to choose list_findings over get_finding or other triage tools. Usage context is implied rather than directed.

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