Retrieve normalized vulnerability findings from a completed OWASP Dependency-Check scan by scan ID. Use it after a scan finishes to review structured dependency risks.
Get the normalized vulnerability report for a completed scan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scan_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 behavioral burden. It notes the scan must be 'completed' but says nothing about error behavior for incomplete scans, required permissions/auth, whether results are cached or paginated, or freshness of the report.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb and resource lead immediately, and nothing redundant is included.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary. But for a retrieval tool with no annotations, the description is thin on preconditions, failure modes, and report scope ('normalized' is left undefined).
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 there is one required parameter (scan_id). The description implies the report is keyed to a scan but adds no format, source, or validity detail for scan_id beyond what the schema's name/type already convey.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('normalized vulnerability report') scoped to a completed scan. It is distinguishable from get_scan_status (status vs. report) and start_dependency_scan (initiates vs. retrieves), though it does not name those siblings explicitly.
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 phrase 'for a completed scan' implies a precondition (the scan must have finished), which is useful usage context. However, it offers no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no statement of what to do if the scan is still running.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.