mcp-defectdojo

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

update_finding

Update an existing vulnerability finding by ID with optional changes to severity, status, or mitigation. Mitigated-to-unmitigated transitions require engagement management role.

Instructions

Update an existing finding. Requires write scope. Rate-limited. Args: finding_id (> 0), plus optional: title, severity (Critical/High/Medium/Low/Info), description, active, verified, false_p, duplicate, out_of_scope, is_mitigated. At least one field required. Returns JSON with updated finding. State-transition gate (F-008/F-018): mitigated→unmitigated cascades (active=true, explicit is_mitigated=false, or false_p/duplicate/out_of_scope flips) are rejected with a redirect to reopen_finding unless the caller's role bears engagement_mgmt (writer/admin).

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": "update_finding"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No
`active`	No
`false_p`	No
`severity`	No
`verified`	No
`duplicate`	No
`finding_id`	Yes
`description`	No
`is_mitigated`	No
`out_of_scope`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.3.2Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limiting, write scope requirement, and a detailed state-transition gate that explains rejection and redirection behavior. This is thorough, though it could mention the exact error response format.

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?

The description is two paragraphs, first immediately stating the update action and listing fields, second detailing the state gate. It is clear and without filler, though the second paragraph is fairly dense.

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 output schema exists, the description adequately covers the update behavior and the complex state-transition gate. It mentions the return format. One minor gap: no mention of error responses beyond redirection.

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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists all optional parameters and notes severity enum values (Critical/High/Medium/Low/Info) and that finding_id must be >0. However, for many self-explanatory fields, it adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 'Update an existing finding' and lists the fields that can be updated. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like 'reopen_finding' by detailing when that alternative should be used, thanks to the state-transition gate explanation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states requirements such as 'At least one field required' and 'Requires write scope. Rate-limited.' It also provides clear when-not guidance: state-transition gate conditions that redirect to 'reopen_finding', with role-based exceptions.

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