Identify devices with known vulnerabilities in your ESET PROTECT fleet, enabling targeted patching and risk reduction.
List devices that currently have one or more known vulnerabilities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | ||
| pageToken | No | ||
| deviceGroupUuid | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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. It states that the tool lists vulnerable devices, but it does not mention pagination behavior, output shape, data source, permissions, or whether 'currently' is based on the latest scan state.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds meaning, and the core purpose is immediately clear.
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 core purpose is clear but the tool is incomplete for confident invocation: no output schema, no annotations, undocumented parameters, and no usage guidance. An agent would know what the tool returns conceptually but not how the optional parameters affect the call or what response 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention pageSize, pageToken, or deviceGroupUuid at all. All three parameters are left undocumented, and the description makes no attempt to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter descriptions.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clearly scoped resource ('devices that currently have one or more known vulnerabilities'), which distinguishes it from siblings like esetprotect_list_devices or esetprotect_list_device_vulnerabilities. It tells an agent exactly what is being returned.
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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as esetprotect_list_devices, esetprotect_list_group_devices, or esetprotect_list_device_vulnerabilities. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or explicit context notes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.