Deletes a note from a finding in DefectDojo using the finding ID and note ID. Use it to clear outdated or incorrect notes from a vulnerability record.
Remove a note from a finding.
Args: finding_id: The finding ID note_id: The note ID to remove (see list_finding_notes)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| note_id | Yes | ||
| finding_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. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description never says whether removal is permanent, what permissions are required, or what happens if the note does not exist. For a delete-style tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful 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?
Two short lines, front-loaded with the action, followed by a compact Args block. Nothing is padded, though the Args formatting is somewhat boilerplate for two self-evident parameters.
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?
The call shape is inferable and an output schema exists to cover return values, so the tool is usable as documented. However, for a destructive operation with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description omits permanence, auth requirements, and failure behavior.
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 schema contributes nothing and the description must compensate. The Args block restates both names ('The finding ID', 'The note ID to remove') and usefully points to list_finding_notes as the way to find valid note IDs, which is the only real added meaning.
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 ('Remove a note from a finding'), which cleanly separates it from add_finding_note and list_finding_notes in the sibling set. It does not explicitly name add_finding_note as the inverse, but the operation is unambiguous.
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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or conditions. The only contextual hint is 'see list_finding_notes' for obtaining the note_id, which is a parameter-sourcing note rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.