Trigger vulnerability scans for selected CIs or groups, choosing from full, quick, or compliance scan types.
Trigger a vulnerability scan for specified CIs or groups. [Write]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group | No | CI group to scan (alternative to ci_sys_ids) | |
| scan_type | No | Scan type: full, quick, compliance (default full) | |
| ci_sys_ids | No | CI sys_ids to scan |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only adds '[Write]', which is redundant given readOnlyHint: false in the annotations. It does not disclose asynchronous behavior, return values, or side effects beyond what annotations already indicate.
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 with a [Write] tag, containing no redundant words. It is front-loaded and 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?
For a simple trigger tool with all optional parameters described, the description covers the core purpose adequately. It lacks information about return values or asynchronous execution, but this is not critical for a straightforward action.
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 all parameters (group, scan_type, ci_sys_ids) already have descriptions in the schema. The description's mention of 'specified CIs or groups' reinforces parameter meanings but adds no new information.
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 action ('Trigger a vulnerability scan') and the resource (vulnerability scan for specified CIs or groups). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like run_discovery_scan or list_vulnerabilities by focusing specifically on triggering a vulnerability scan.
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 clear context (for specified CIs or groups) and implies the tool's use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.