mcp-defectdojo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_finding_notes

Retrieve all notes associated with a specific vulnerability finding by providing the finding ID.

Instructions

List notes for a finding. Args: finding_id (> 0). Returns universal envelope {"items": [...], "pagination": {...}} with note entry F-002 wrapped.

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": {
      "finding_id": "<finding_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_finding_notes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`finding_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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description partially compensates by describing the return format and noting that note entries are 'F-002 wrapped.' However, it does not disclose potential side effects, authentication needs, or confirm read-only behavior.

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?

The description is concise with two sentences, first stating purpose, then detailing arguments and return format. No filler words.

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?

The description specifies the return envelope structure and note entry format. Since an output schema exists, it is acceptable. It does not mention pagination details but the envelope includes pagination, so it's implied.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The description explicitly states 'finding_id (> 0)', adding validation and meaning that the schema lacks. This compensates for zero schema description coverage.

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 explicitly states 'List notes for a finding,' which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like list_findings by specifying notes for a finding.

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 implies usage for fetching notes but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like add_finding_notes. It lacks exclusion criteria or context for optimal use.

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