Retrieve a complete security report for a finished scan by providing its UUID. Choose JSON, HTML, or text format to review vulnerabilities and safeguard results.
Retrieve a full security report for a completed scan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | "json" (default), "html", or "text". | json |
| scan_id | Yes | UUID of the scan to retrieve. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but does not mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens if the scan is not found. It also does not clarify whether the report is generated on the fly or retrieved from storage, leaving uncertainty about behavior.
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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. There is no fluff, and it effectively communicates the core purpose in minimal words.
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 tool has an output schema, which likely covers return values, and the schema covers parameters, so the description does not need to explain those. However, given the lack of annotations and the presence of siblings, it is missing context on when to use this versus alternatives, and it does not address edge cases like invalid scan_id. It is minimally complete but with gaps.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it just reiterates the resource. With full coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not go beyond 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 states a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('security report for a completed scan'), which clearly indicates what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like 'get_scan_history' or 'compare_scans' beyond the focus on a single completed scan. It is clear but not fully distinguishing.
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 'for a completed scan' gives some context on when to use it, implying it should not be used for in-progress scans. However, it does not explicitly state when to use an alternative, such as 'get_scan_history' for listing past scans or 'compare_scans' for comparisons. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.