Audit Findings MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Features and capabilities supported by this server
Protocol revision2025-11-25
| Capability | Details |
|---|---|
| tools | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| prompts | {
"listChanged": false
} |
| resources | {
"subscribe": false,
"listChanged": false
} |
| experimental | {} |
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| list_findingsA | 監査指摘を全件取得する |
| find_by_statusA | 指定した状態（Open / Closed）の監査指摘を取得する |
| update_finding_statusA | |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| summarize_open_findings | 未対応（Open）の監査指摘を集計・要約するための手順テンプレート |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| all_findings_resource | 監査指摘の全件データ（JSON形式、読み取り専用） |
TDQS
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing all findings, filtering by status, and updating a status. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools use snake_case and follow a verb-based pattern (list, find, update). The minor inconsistency is the use of 'find' vs 'list' for read operations, but the names are still predictable and readable.
With 3 tools, the count is within the typical well-scoped range, but it is on the lower end. Each tool serves a functional purpose, though the scope feels minimal for an audit findings domain.
The server lacks fundamental operations like creating or deleting audit findings. It only supports reading (all or by status) and updating status, leaving obvious lifecycle gaps that would force agents to work around.