Skip to main content
Glama

manage_false_positives

Suppress, remove, or list false positive security findings to improve audit accuracy and reduce noise in compliance validation.

Instructions

Manage false positive suppressions

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesAction to perform
findingIdNoFinding ID to suppress
reasonNoReason for suppression

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the manage_false_positives tool logic. It destructures args for action, findingId, and reason, then switches on action to add, remove, list, or filter false positives using the FalsePositiveFilter instance.
    private async handleManageFalsePositives(args: any): Promise<any> {
      const { action, findingId, reason } = args;
    
      switch (action) {
        case 'add':
          if (!findingId || !reason) {
            throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidRequest, 'Finding ID and reason required for add action');
          }
          
          await this.falsePositiveFilter.addRule({
            findingType: 'manual',
            pattern: findingId,
            reason,
          });
          
          return {
            status: 'success',
            message: `Added false positive rule for ${findingId}`,
          };
    
        case 'remove':
          if (!findingId) {
            throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidRequest, 'Finding ID required for remove action');
          }
          
          const removed = await this.falsePositiveFilter.removeRule(findingId);
          
          return {
            status: removed ? 'success' : 'not_found',
            message: removed ? `Removed rule ${findingId}` : `Rule ${findingId} not found`,
          };
    
        case 'list':
          await this.falsePositiveFilter.loadRules();
          
          return {
            status: 'success',
            rules: [], // Would need to expose rules from filter
          };
    
        case 'filter':
          // This would be used internally during scans
          return {
            status: 'success',
            message: 'False positive filtering is applied automatically during scans',
          };
    
        default:
          throw new McpError(ErrorCode.InvalidRequest, `Unknown action: ${action}`);
      }
    }
  • Registers the manage_false_positives tool in the ListToolsRequestSchema handler, including its name, description, and input schema definition.
    {
      name: 'manage_false_positives',
      description: 'Manage false positive suppressions',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          action: {
            type: 'string',
            enum: ['add', 'remove', 'list', 'filter'],
            description: 'Action to perform'
          },
          findingId: { type: 'string', description: 'Finding ID to suppress' },
          reason: { type: 'string', description: 'Reason for suppression' },
        },
        required: ['action'],
      },
    },
  • Defines the input schema for the manage_false_positives tool, specifying properties for action, findingId, and reason.
    inputSchema: {
      type: 'object',
      properties: {
        action: {
          type: 'string',
          enum: ['add', 'remove', 'list', 'filter'],
          description: 'Action to perform'
        },
        findingId: { type: 'string', description: 'Finding ID to suppress' },
        reason: { type: 'string', description: 'Reason for suppression' },
      },
      required: ['action'],
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Manage false positive suppressions' implies mutation operations (add/remove) and read operations (list/filter), but it doesn't specify permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a tool with multiple actions and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool name that implies its function, though it could be more front-loaded with operational details. Every word earns its place, but the brevity contributes to underspecification rather than optimal clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's complexity (multiple actions, security domain) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral nuances. For a tool that likely involves critical security operations like suppressing findings, more context is needed to ensure safe and correct usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters (action, findingId, reason) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Manage false positive suppressions' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'manage_false_positives'. It lacks a specific verb indicating what operations are performed (add, remove, list, filter) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'manage_custom_rules' or 'check_compliance'. While it mentions the resource domain (false positive suppressions), the purpose remains vague without operational details.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after a scan), or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'check_compliance' or 'generate_remediation' might overlap in security contexts, but there's no explicit comparison or usage scenarios to help an agent decide appropriately.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/NeoTecDigital/mcp_shamash'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server