mcp-defectdojo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_tests

Retrieve a paginated list of tests for a given engagement ID. Specify optional limit and offset to control results.

Instructions

List tests for an engagement. Args: engagement_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": {
      "engagement_id": "<engagement_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_tests"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so full burden falls on description. It describes return structure but lacks details on error behavior, authorization needs, or what happens if engagement_id does not exist.

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 concise sentences: first states purpose, second lists arguments and return structure. No wasted 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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameters, and return format. Minor gaps in error handling and edge cases, but overall sufficient for a list operation.

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 schema coverage at 0%, the description adds meaningful constraints and validations (e.g., engagement_id > 0, limit 1-100, offset >= 0) for all three parameters, exceeding what the schema provides.

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 the verb 'list' and the resource 'tests for an engagement', directly differentiating it from sibling tools like list_engagements or list_findings.

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?

Parameter constraints (engagement_id > 0, limit 1-100, offset >= 0) and defaults are given, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance versus alternatives is provided.

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