Categorize a security finding and all matching findings in the project as false positives by supplying a required reason, keeping audit results precise.
Mark a finding and matching findings in the project as false positives. A reason is required.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reason | Yes | ||
| finding_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It adds useful context by disclosing that the operation affects not only the given finding but also 'matching findings in the project,' and that a reason is mandatory. However, it does not disclose other behavioral traits such as permissions, reversibility, idempotency, or consequences of the broad matching scope.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, and the required reason is stated immediately afterward. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple two-parameter mutation, the description covers the key invocation details: what to mark, the project-level scope, and the required reason. However, it leaves 'matching findings' undefined, which is a significant ambiguity for an agent deciding whether calling the tool might affect a broader set of findings than expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate, but it adds little beyond the schema. 'Finding' and 'reason' are obvious from the parameter names and titles, and the requirement that reason is mandatory is already in the schema's required list. The description does not explain what 'matching findings' means for finding_id or what constitutes an acceptable reason.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly identifies the action ('Mark... as false positives'), the resource ('a finding and matching findings in the project'), and the requirement ('A reason is required'). It is distinguishable from the sibling unmark_false_positive by the 'false positive' direction, though it does not explicitly name that alternative.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is for suppressing false positives but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. It does not mention the sibling unmark_false_positive or any situation where a different tool should be preferred, so the agent must infer usage context from the name and action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.