Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Penthera: Cyber Security Agent

Penthera: Cyber Security Agent

by danoszz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Explain a finding

explain_finding
Read-onlyIdempotent

Explains a Penthera finding's rule, including what it checks, why it matters, how to fix it, effort, owner actions, and references.

Instructions

Explain a finding's rule: what it checks, why it matters, how to fix it, effort, whether it is an owner action (rotate a key, change DNS), research references and OWASP MCP/Agentic ids. Pass the rule field of a finding as id (e.g. agents/mcp-unpinned, secrets, headers).

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "explain_finding"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesThe finding's `rule`, e.g. agents/mcp-unpinned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the response (fix guidance, effort, owner-action flag, research references, OWASP ids), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not say how unknown or malformed rule ids are handled.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and back-loaded with the invocation instruction. The long clause enumerating return contents is dense but each item earns its place by describing what the caller will receive. Slightly list-heavy but no filler.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description carries the necessary burden by describing what the response contains and how to source the id. The only gap is edge-case behavior for unrecognized rule ids, which is minor here.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description reinforces the most likely caller error — passing a finding id rather than the finding's `rule` — and supplies extra example values (secrets, headers) that show the id is a namespaced rule key, not an opaque finding identifier.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — explain a finding's rule — and immediately enumerates the content returned (what it checks, why it matters, how to fix, effort, owner-action status, references, OWASP ids). That enumeration makes it unambiguous against siblings like scan_repo or check_dependencies, which scan rather than explain.

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?

Tells the caller explicitly how to invoke it in context: take the `rule` field from a finding and pass it as `id`. That is real usage guidance tied to the workflow. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when not to use it, so it lands below a 5.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools