Reads a security audit report's grounded context or returns exact evidence for one finding ID. Use it to inspect findings and supporting proof on demand.
Read grounded report context, or the exact evidence for one finding ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| report_id | No | latest | |
| finding_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the mode switch (context vs. finding evidence) on top of that; it discloses nothing about defaults, error behavior, or scoping that isn't in structured fields.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the two retrieval modes are stated inline rather than buried. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of under-specification.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and read-only annotations cover safety. What is missing is the meaning of the 'latest' report_id default and whether finding_id can be used without a report_id — usable, but not complete for a 2-param tool at 0% schema coverage.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It meaningfully ties finding_id to 'the exact evidence for one finding ID', but says nothing about report_id, its 'latest' default, or the null default for finding_id — leaving half the parameters unexplained outside the bare 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 specific verb ('Read') and resource ('report context' / 'evidence'), and distinguishes two retrieval modes (whole report vs. one finding's evidence). It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like reports_list or reports_compare, which a 'get' tool sharing that namespace arguably needs.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: supplying a finding ID selects the evidence mode, omitting it reads report context. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools an agent should consider instead (reports_list, reports_compare).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.