Retrieve a generated OWASP ZAP security report by its path to review scan findings without manual file access.
Read a generated report artifact back through MCP after zap_report_generate, without manual filesystem access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| maxChars | No | Maximum characters to return (optional, default: 20000, max: 200000) | |
| reportPath | Yes | Report path returned by zap_report_generate |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly implies a read operation ('Read') and mentions the alternative of manual filesystem access, which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose any additional behavior, such as error handling or the format of the returned content, which is a minor gap for a simple read tool.
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 a single, compact sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, includes the key context (after zap_report_generate) and the benefit (no manual filesystem access). Zero waste; every word earns its place.
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 tool is simple with two parameters (one required), no output schema, and low complexity. The description explains the purpose and when to use it. While it doesn't explicitly state the return value, it's implied by 'read back through MCP.' This is adequate for a straightforward read operation.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't clarify maxChars behavior or report path format beyond the schema's own description). Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool reads a report artifact, specifies its use after zap_report_generate, and distinguishes it from manual filesystem access. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling read tools like zap_scan_history_get, but the resource type (report artifact) is distinct enough.
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?
The description gives clear context on when to use it (after zap_report_generate) and why (avoid manual filesystem access). It doesn't explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the context is sufficient for an agent to understand its placement in the workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.