Retrieve organizations (product types) from DefectDojo. Filter by name and paginate results with limit and offset.
List organizations (product types).
Args: name: Filter by name (contains) limit: Results per page (default 25) offset: Pagination offset
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| 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 burden. 'List' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation and the pagination arguments imply paged results, but the description never explicitly states read-only behavior, required permissions, or default ordering.
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 purpose is front-loaded in one sentence followed by a compact Args list. It is appropriately sized for a simple list tool with no wasted prose.
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 no explanation, and all three parameters are documented. However, the description lacks any usage context relative to the many sibling listing/CRUD tools, leaving the agent slightly under-informed about when to reach for it.
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, and it does: it documents that 'name' is a contains-match filter, that 'limit' defaults to 25 results per page, and that 'offset' is a pagination offset. This adds genuine semantics the raw schema lacks.
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 gives a clear verb ('List') and resource ('organizations'), with a parenthetical mapping them to the 'product types' domain concept. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like list_products or get_organization, so an agent still has to infer its place in the family.
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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when this should be preferred over get_organization or list_products, and no prerequisites stated. Only the argument list is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.