mcp-defectdojo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_engagements

Retrieve a paginated list of engagements for a specific product using its ID. Specify limit and offset to control results.

Instructions

List engagements for a product. Args: product_id (> 0), limit (1-100, default 20), offset (>= 0). Returns JSON with 'items' array and 'pagination' metadata.

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": {
      "product_id": "<product_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_engagements"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`product_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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permissions, or side effects beyond the obvious listing operation. Minimal transparency.

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?

Two sentences: first for purpose, second for parameters and return structure. No extraneous words, front-loaded, and efficient.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers return structure and parameter constraints. However, it omits details like default ordering or filtering capabilities, which would enhance completeness for a list tool.

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

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the tool description adds essential meaning by specifying constraints: product_id > 0, limit 1-100 (default 20), offset >= 0. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states 'List engagements for a product,' which uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_engagement' or 'create_engagement.'

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 provides parameter constraints but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It gives context but lacks guidance on selection.

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