Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TaskBounty Check

TaskBounty Check

by eliottreich
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

explain_finding

Translate security rule IDs into plain-language explanations that clarify why each finding matters and how to address it.

Instructions

Explain what a finding means and why it matters, in plain language. Pass the rule id (e.g. unpinned-action) or a category. No network, no file access.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "rule": "<rule>"
    },
    "name": "explain_finding"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ruleYesRule id, e.g. unpinned-action, broad-permissions, no-permissions-block, script-injection.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.6

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'No network, no file access' and 'explain' implies a read-only operation, but does not explicitly confirm non-destructiveness or discuss authorization needs. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of three short statements that are front-loaded with the purpose. Every sentence adds meaningful information without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with one parameter, the description covers purpose, input format, and constraints. It lacks details about output format or error handling, but given the simplicity and expectation of plain language, it is fairly complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 the parameter. The description adds that the parameter can accept a 'category' in addition to rule ids, providing extra context, but this is a minor addition.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb 'explain' and resource 'finding', and provides examples of rule ids. It clearly states what the tool does, but does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like generate_fix_plan or scan_repo.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies the tool is for understanding findings and mentions constraints ('No network, no file access'), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools