Skip to main content
Glama
jamiesonio

DefectDojo MCP Server

by jamiesonio

get_engagement

Retrieve specific engagement details by ID from DefectDojo, enabling efficient vulnerability management and programmatic interaction with engagement data.

Instructions

Get a specific engagement by ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
engagement_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'get_engagement' tool. It retrieves the engagement using the DefectDojo client and formats the response.
    async def get_engagement(engagement_id: int) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Get a specific engagement by ID.
    
        Args:
            engagement_id: ID of the engagement to retrieve
    
        Returns:
            Dictionary with status and data/error
        """
        client = get_client()
        result = await client.get_engagement(engagement_id)
    
        if "error" in result:
            return {"status": "error", "error": result["error"], "details": result.get("details", "")}
    
        return {"status": "success", "data": result}
  • Registration of the 'get_engagement' tool with the MCP server in the central tools.py file.
    mcp.tool(
        name="get_engagement",
        description="Get a specific engagement by ID"
    )(get_engagement)
  • Low-level client method that performs the actual API request for getting an engagement.
    async def get_engagement(self, engagement_id: int) -> Dict[str, Any]:
        """Get a specific engagement by ID."""
        return await self._request("GET", f"/api/v2/engagements/{engagement_id}/")
  • Additional registration in the engagements_tools.py module (possibly redundant).
    mcp.tool(name="get_engagement", description="Get a specific engagement by ID")(get_engagement)
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 but offers minimal information. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if the ID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.

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's low complexity (one required parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete parameter guidance, it lacks depth for safe and effective use, especially in a context with multiple sibling tools.

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 description mentions 'by ID', which adds context that the single parameter is an engagement identifier, but the schema already defines this as 'engagement_id' of type integer with 0% description coverage. This provides basic semantics but doesn't fully compensate for the lack of schema details, such as ID format or constraints.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('engagement by ID'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_engagements' or 'create_engagement', which would require explicit comparison to earn a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'list_engagements' for multiple engagements or 'create_engagement' for new ones, nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid engagement ID. This leaves the agent without usage context.

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