Add a note to a DefectDojo engagement to document test results, updates, or private comments. Requires engagement ID and note text.
Add a note to an engagement.
Args: engagement_id: The engagement ID entry: Note text content private: Whether the note is private
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entry | Yes | ||
| private | No | ||
| engagement_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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It says nothing about permissions required, whether notes are editable/deletable, or the effect of the private flag beyond a tautological restatement. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a real gap.
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 short and front-loads the purpose, but the Args section largely duplicates what the schema already exposes, spending words without adding value. It is efficient though somewhat redundant.
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 values need not be explained, but for a mutation tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage the description omits behavioral context (auth, defaults, editability) and any usage framing. It is inadequate for correct invocation alone.
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%, so the description must compensate, but its Args block only restates param names: 'engagement_id: The engagement ID' and 'private: Whether the note is private' are tautologies. Only 'entry: Note text content' adds minor meaning, which is insufficient for three undocumented parameters.
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 states a specific verb and resource ('Add a note to an engagement'), making it distinguishable from siblings like add_test_note and add_finding_note by the 'engagement' target. It is clear, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those near-identical siblings.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus add_test_note, add_finding_note, or list_engagement_notes, and no prerequisites are stated. The agent must infer the context entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.