Retrieve notification configurations from DefectDojo to inspect alert settings and manage notifications, using limit and offset for pagination.
List notification configurations.
Args: limit: Results per page offset: Pagination offset
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
| 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. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description never states permissions, pagination behavior beyond defaults, or ordering. For a bare listing tool this is a notable gap rather than a contradiction.
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?
Two sentences plus a compact Args block, front-loaded with the purpose. No filler; the only slight waste is that the Args entries restate what the param names already imply.
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 described, and both parameters are covered. However, for a listing tool with no annotations, the description omits filtering, ordering, and permission context, leaving it only minimally complete.
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%, but the Args block compensates by documenting both parameters (limit = results per page, offset = pagination offset). This is the minimum viable semantic content for self-evident paging params; nothing about defaults, max values, or interaction between the two is added.
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 and resource ('List notification configurations'), so the agent knows it retrieves a collection of notification configs. No sibling tool in the list touches notifications, so there is nothing to differentiate against; it is clear but not sibling-contrasted.
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?
Contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.