Fetch the Red Hat Insights Vulnerability OpenAPI specification in JSON format for direct integration and automated access to vulnerability service endpoints.
Get Red Hat Insights Vulnerability OpenAPI specification in JSON format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds no extra behavioral details such as rate limits, authentication, or response size. It confirms JSON format but goes no further.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 10 words with no fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
Given no parameters, an output schema exists (though not provided), and the tool is a simple OpenAPI spec retrieval, the description is complete enough. It tells the user exactly what to expect.
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?
There are no parameters, so the description need not add parameter meaning. The schema coverage is 100% trivially. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets it.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get', the resource 'Red Hat Insights Vulnerability OpenAPI specification', and the format 'JSON'. It distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like image-builder__get_openapi by specifying the service.
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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or when not to use it. For a simple tool, some context could be added.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.