Skip to main content
Glama
jamiesonio

DefectDojo MCP Server

by jamiesonio

add_finding_note

Add a detailed note to a specific finding in DefectDojo to enhance vulnerability management and tracking. Supports collaboration and context for resolving issues.

Instructions

Add a note to a finding

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
finding_idYes
noteYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The async handler function that executes the tool: validates input, calls DefectDojo client to add note, returns success/error response.
    async def add_finding_note(finding_id: int, note: str) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Add a note to a finding.
    
        Args:
            finding_id: ID of the finding to add a note to
            note: Text content of the note
    
        Returns:
            Dictionary with status and data/error
        """
        if not note.strip():
            return {"status": "error", "error": "Note content cannot be empty"}
    
        client = get_client()
        result = await client.add_note_to_finding(finding_id, note)
    
        if "error" in result:
            return {"status": "error", "error": result["error"], "details": result.get("details", "")}
    
        return {"status": "success", "data": result}
  • Registers the add_finding_note tool with the MCP server instance, importing the handler from findings_tools.
    mcp.tool(
        name="add_finding_note",
        description="Add a note to a finding"
    )(add_finding_note)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('add') but doesn't cover permissions required, whether notes are editable/deletable, rate limits, or response behavior. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—'Add a note to a finding' is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity. Every word contributes directly to the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), low complexity (2 simple parameters), and no annotations, the description is minimally complete. It states what the tool does but lacks context on usage, behavioral traits, and parameter details, making it adequate only in a bare-bones sense with clear gaps for effective agent use.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'finding' and 'note' but adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property names ('finding_id', 'note'). No details on parameter formats, constraints, or examples are provided, failing to adequately clarify semantics for the two required parameters.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'Add a note to a finding' clearly states the action (add) and target resource (finding), but it's vague about what 'note' entails and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_finding_status' or 'create_finding'. It avoids tautology by not just restating the name, but lacks specificity about the note's purpose or format.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing finding), exclusions, or compare to siblings like 'update_finding_status' for status changes. The description implies usage but offers no explicit context or decision criteria.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/jamiesonio/defectdojo-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server