dismiss_findingMark a finding as dismissed so it stops appearing in default views. Reversible with restore_finding, and records an optional reason in the audit trail.
Mark a finding as dismissed so it stops appearing in default views. Reversible with restore_finding.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Finding id. | |
| reason | No | Optional free-text justification recorded in the audit trail. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description adds real value beyond them: the effect is scoped (removed from default views, not deleted) and the action is reversible via restore_finding, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before mutating state.
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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The primary effect comes first and the reversal note follows, which is the right ordering for a state-changing tool.
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?
For a two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the key missing pieces: the semantic effect and reversibility. It is essentially complete, with only minor gaps around permission requirements or idempotency restatement.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (id, reason) are documented there, including that reason is recorded in the audit trail. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 (mark as dismissed) and resource (finding), plus the concrete effect (stops appearing in default views). It explicitly names its counterpart sibling restore_finding, letting an agent distinguish it without opening a schema.
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?
Implies when to use it and explicitly names restore_finding as the reversal path, which signals the paired alternative. It lacks explicit when-not conditions (e.g., permanent deletion vs dismissal), but the route to the sibling is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.