mcp-defectdojo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_test

Create a new test in DefectDojo by specifying engagement, test type, start and end dates. Returns JSON with the created test.

Instructions

Create a new test. Requires write scope. Rate-limited. Args: engagement_id (> 0), test_type_id (> 0), target_start (YYYY-MM-DD), target_end (YYYY-MM-DD). Returns JSON with created test.

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": {
      "engagement_id": "<engagement_id>",
      "test_type_id": "<test_type_id>",
      "target_start": "<target_start>",
      "target_end": "<target_end>"
    },
    "name": "create_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target_end`	Yes
`target_start`	Yes
`test_type_id`	Yes
`engagement_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.3.2Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds behavioral context beyond the action: 'Requires write scope' and 'Rate-limited' inform the agent about access and throttling, and 'Returns JSON with created test' clarifies output, compensating for missing annotations.

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?

Reasonably concise: a single sentence followed by a parameter list. The parameter list could be integrated more elegantly, but the description is not overly 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?

Output schema exists and description mentions it, but missing broader context like prerequisites (e.g., engagement must exist) or side effects, leaving some gaps for a creation tool with 4 parameters.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description lists parameters with some constraints (>0 for integers, YYYY-MM-DD for strings), but does not explain their meaning (e.g., what engagement_id or test_type_id represent), leaving gaps.

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 'Create a new test' with a specific verb and resource. While it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_engagement or create_finding by naming the resource, it does not explicitly differentiate usage scenarios.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without providing context for when it should be chosen over other creation tools.

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