gmi-security-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mark_fp

Marks a stored security finding as a false positive with a required reason, creating a scoped triage memory that hints future reviews without auto-rejecting.

Instructions

Mark a stored finding false_positive. reason is required.

Creates a triage memory with the given scope (global, package, or target, default target). The memory is a hint only: it never auto-rejects a future finding, and the agent must still triage it. Memories are created only by this human call.

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": {
      "finding_id": "<finding_id>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "mark_fp"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`scope`	No	target
`reason`	Yes
`db_path`	No
`finding_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.5.11Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the side effect (creates a triage memory), the scope of that side effect, and critically that the memory is a hint only and never auto-rejects future findings. Return values are covered by the output schema, so omission there is acceptable; only the db_path parameter's behavior is unexplained.

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?

The core action and required parameter are front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by the side effect and its limits. The line-broken layout is slightly awkward but no sentence is redundant.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers the side effect, its scope, its non-destructive semantics, and who may invoke it, while the output schema handles return values. Only db_path and the exact response shape of the memory creation remain undescribed.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it marks reason as required and enumerates the scope values (global, package, target, default target) even though the schema defines scope only as a bare string. It does not explain db_path, which is the only real gap.

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 ('Mark a stored finding false_positive'), which an agent can distinguish from the sibling mark_confirmed by polarity alone. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the action is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb ('mark ... false_positive') and the note that memories are created only by this human call, which hints at when an agent may invoke it. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no named alternative such as mark_confirmed for confirmations.

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

Deploy Server