Retrieve a specific scan history or release-evidence entry by its ID to inspect past scan details and results.
Read one scan history or release-evidence entry by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| entryId | Yes | Entry ID returned by zap_scan_history_list |
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 must carry the behavioral burden. The verb 'Read' clearly signals a non-mutating operation, which is useful, but the description does not disclose behavior for missing/invalid IDs, permissions, or what the returned entry contains. It is adequate for a simple read but not fully transparent.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action ('Read') and the resource ('one ... entry'), with zero filler. Every word earns its place for a single-parameter getter.
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 description combined with the fully documented parameter is enough for an agent to invoke the tool on a simple get-by-ID operation. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves return format and error behavior unspecified; this is a minor gap given the low complexity.
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?
With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter is already documented: 'Entry ID returned by zap_scan_history_list.' The description only restates 'by ID' and adds no new meaning about format, constraints, or relationship to other tools beyond the schema.
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 precise verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('one scan history or release-evidence entry'), and an access pattern ('by ID'). The singular 'one ... by ID' differentiates it from the list-oriented sibling zap_scan_history_list, and naming both entry types removes ambiguity about what can be fetched.
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 read-by-ID wording implies the tool is for retrieving a single previously obtained entry, but the description does not explicitly state when to prefer it over zap_scan_history_list, zap_scan_history_release_evidence, or other sibling tools. There is no when-not or alternative routing, so usage context is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.