Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AIR MCP Server

AIR MCP Server

by VericyIO
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Get assessment report

air_get_assessment_report
Read-only

Fetch structured risk assessment reports for completed runs. Get the full report, or select a section and page list sections using offset and limit.

Instructions

Fetch the structured risk assessment report for a completed run. Omit section to get the whole report; if it is too large for one response you get a section index instead — each section with its size and item count — so you can pull the parts you need. Pass section for one slice, and offset/limit to page through a list section such as riskRegister or evidenceAppendix. Requires assessments:read.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "assessmentPid": "<assessmentPid>"
    },
    "name": "air_get_assessment_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax items to return when section is a list
offsetNoFirst item to return when section is a list (default 0)
sectionNoReport section to return instead of the whole report
assessmentPidYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max items to return when section is a list",
+  "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / offset
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "First item to return when section is a list (default 0)",
+  "minimum": 0,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / section
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Report section to return instead of the whole report",
+  "enum": [
+    "overview",
+    "quality",
+    "systemProfile",
+    "riskRegister",
+    "watchlist",
+    "clearedThemes",
+    "cannotEvaluateThemes",
+    "controlMatrix",
+    "overlays",
+    "controlEvidence",
+    "positions",
+    "lensViews",
+    "euAiActTier",
+    "euAiActFacts",
+    "projectDecisions",
+    "changesSincePrevious",
+    "evidenceAppendix",
+    "inputArtifacts"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations already covering the read-only safety profile, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the section-index fallback when the report is too large, pagination semantics for list sections, and an explicit permission requirement ('Requires assessments:read'). This is disclosure beyond what the structured fields provide.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then behavior, then parameters. Every sentence carries information, though the middle sentence is somewhat complex and could be tightened.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing the section-index response structure and paging model, and it covers permissions. It is nearly complete; the missing piece is sibling differentiation against other assessment-retrieval tools.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 75%, and the description meaningfully augments it by explaining that section selects one slice, that offset/limit page through list sections, and naming examples (riskRegister, evidenceAppendix). It does not explain assessmentPid, though that is self-evident from its name.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Fetch the structured risk assessment report') with the scope qualifier 'for a completed run', which is meaningful. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like air_get_assessment_summary or air_get_assessment, leaving that inference to the agent.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives clear parameter-level usage (omit section for the whole report, pass section for one slice, offset/limit to page), which is strong operational guidance. However, it never says when to use this tool over the summary/assessment siblings, so alternative selection is left implicit.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools