Retrieve owner-scoped security findings for a completed batch scan using its job ID. Get full or compact results to review DNS and email vulnerabilities.
Fetch owner-scoped findings for a completed asynchronous batch scan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | ||
| job_id | Yes | Job ID returned by batch_scan_start. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.73.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: findings are 'owner-scoped' and the scan must be 'completed'. It does not discuss error behavior for incomplete scans, but this is a minor gap given the strong annotation coverage.
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, dense sentence that front-loads the action, resource, scope, and precondition. Every word earns its place and there is no redundant filler.
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?
The description covers purpose, scope, and the completion precondition, which is sufficient for an agent to decide to call this tool. Since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about the return shape or format semantics would improve completeness, but the low parameter complexity and strong annotations keep this from being a significant gap.
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?
The schema already describes job_id, including its pattern and source, but provides no description for the optional 'format' parameter. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, failing to clarify the difference between 'full' and 'compact' or any default behavior. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.
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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('owner-scoped findings'), and specifies the condition 'for a completed asynchronous batch scan'. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like batch_scan_start (starting) and batch_scan_status (status).
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 phrase 'completed asynchronous batch scan' clearly implies this tool is used after a batch_scan_start job has finished, giving solid usage context. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the timing condition is unambiguous enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.