Sentinela

sentinela_validate_fix

Re-run the analyzer for a specific finding to validate that its fix removed the vulnerability.

Instructions

Re-executa o analyzer de um finding específico para verificar se a correção foi aplicada com sucesso.

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": {
      "finding_id": "<finding_id>",
      "category": "<category>",
      "project_path": "<project_path>"
    },
    "name": "sentinela_validate_fix"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`category`	Yes	Categoria do finding (ex: xss, secrets, idor)
`finding_id`	Yes	ID do finding a validar (ex: SENT-XSS-001)
`project_path`	Yes	Caminho do projeto

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 17, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does 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 conveys that the analyzer is re-executed, but says nothing about whether this is read-only, whether it mutates state, cost/latency, permissions required, or what a failed validation implies.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though arguably under-specified rather than maximally concise.

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

Completeness2/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what validation returns (pass/fail, residual findings, re-scan output) and any preconditions. It omits all of this, leaving the agent unable to anticipate the result.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (finding_id, category, project_path) are documented in the schema itself, including examples. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 + resource: 'Re-executa o analyzer de um finding específico' with the goal of verifying that a fix was applied. An agent understands the action well, but the description makes no explicit reference to distinguish it from siblings like sentinela_suggest_fix or the sentinela_audit_* family.

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?

'verificar se a correção foi aplicada com sucesso' implies it should be called after applying a fix (presumably from sentinela_suggest_fix), so usage is inferable. However, no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are stated.

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

Deploy Server