Damn Vulnerable MCP Server (DVMCP)

by Kyze-Labs

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

fin.export_financial_data

Export invoices, expenses, payment methods, and payroll reports as structured data for financial analysis.

Instructions

Export financial reports as structured data. Available report types: invoices, expenses, payment_methods, payroll.

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": {
      "report_type": "<report_type>"
    },
    "name": "fin.export_financial_data"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`report_type`	Yes	Type of report to export
`date_range`	No	Date range filter (e.g., '2026-01 to 2026-03')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or what the 'structured data' output format is (e.g., CSV vs JSON). The term 'Export' implies a read but is not explicit.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence plus a list, front-loaded with the verb and resource. No redundant or filler content; every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter tool, the description supplies the critical report type enumeration, but lacks details on output format or any constraints on date_range. Since there is no output schema, these omissions leave some ambiguity, though the tool is still minimally usable.

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 descriptions cover both parameters (100%), so baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by enumerating valid report types (invoices, expenses, payment_methods, payroll), which the schema does not provide via enums, improving parameter understanding.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states 'Export financial reports as structured data' with specific verb and resource. It also lists available report types, distinguishing it from siblings like fin.query_invoices (individual queries) and hr.run_payroll_report (HR-specific).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as fin.query_invoices or hr.run_payroll_report. The description only defines the action without context on selection criteria or exclusions.

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