kali-security-bridge

listar_findings

Retrieve security findings from the database, optionally filtered by target, to review vulnerabilities and audit results from offensive tests.

Instructions

Lista findings registrados no banco de dados, filtrados opcionalmente por alvo.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "listar_findings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Máximo de resultados. Padrão: 50
`target`	No	Filtro parcial por alvo. Vazio = todos.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It does not mention that this is a read-only operation, whether results are paginated (only a limit parameter), or any side effects. Since it's a database listing, it's likely safe, but the description doesn't say so.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, concise sentence that conveys the core purpose. It doesn't waste words, though it could be slightly more descriptive without being verbose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values. However, for a listing tool, the description is minimal: it doesn't mention ordering, default behavior (beyond the schema), or any constraints. Given the simplicity, it is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 documents both parameters (limit and target). The description mentions the 'target' filter but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists findings from the database with optional target filtering. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on 'findings' rather than scanning or reporting actions, even though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus others. The description implies it is for retrieving recorded findings but gives no context about when this is appropriate (e.g., after a scan or as part of a report) or when to prefer other tools like gerar_relatorio.

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