Skip to main content
Glama

accept_finding

Mark a security finding as a false positive or accepted risk with a documented reason and reviewer. Write a structured suppression comment into the file, with optional expiry for accepted risks.

Instructions

Insert a justified suppression comment into a skill file.

Marks a finding as a false positive or accepted risk with a documented reason, reviewer, and optional expiry date. The suppression is written directly into the file as a structured comment that lives in version control and shows up in PR reviews.

Accepted risks with an expiry date automatically resurface as active findings on the next scan after the expiry date passes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ave_idYesAVE ID to suppress (e.g. AVE-2026-00001)
file_pathYesAbsolute or relative path to the skill file
lineYesLine number of the finding to suppress
reasonYesWhy this finding is a false positive or accepted risk
reviewerYesYour GitHub handle or name
acceptance_typeNo"false-positive" (permanent) or "accepted-risk" (with expiry)false-positive
expires_daysNoDays until the accepted risk expires (required for accepted-risk)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral aspects. It discloses that the suppression is written directly into the file as a structured comment in version control and that accepted risks resurface after expiry. However, it does not mention potential side effects like file modification permissions or whether a commit is needed.

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?

The description is structured in three short paragraphs and is front-loaded with the primary action. It is efficient without being overly verbose, though some sentences could be combined. It earns its place.

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?

Given the tool has 7 parameters (5 required) and an output schema, the description covers the key behaviors: the two acceptance types, expiry handling, and version control integration. It does not detail the output or error handling, but the output schema likely covers that. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already describes each parameter thoroughly. The description does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema, but it provides overall context for the parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Insert a justified suppression comment into a skill file.' It further explains that it marks a finding as false positive or accepted risk with documentation. This differentiates it from sibling tools like scan_chain or list_ave, which are about scanning and listing respectively.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explains that the tool is used to suppress findings as false positives or accepted risks. It also details the behavior of expiry, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives. However, its usage is well-defined within the context of the sibling tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bawbel/bawbel-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server