Retrieve basic Nessus server details to verify connectivity, version, and status, enabling AI-assisted vulnerability management within Tenable Security MCP.
Get basic information about the Nessus server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It states the tool is a read-only info fetch, which implies non-destructiveness, but it doesn't mention permissions or response characteristics. Given the presence of an output schema, rich behavioral detail is less critical, so a 3 is appropriate.
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?
A single, efficient sentence with no wasted words and the core purpose front-loaded.
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 zero-param tool with an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. However, it lacks any mention of what information is returned or when to use it over the similar cloud server info tool, leaving a gap.
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?
The tool takes no parameters and the schema has 100% description coverage (vacuously), so there are no semantics to clarify. A baseline of 4 is correct for zero-parameter tools.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (Nessus server information), clear enough for an agent. It doesn't differentiate from the sibling get_tenable_cloud_server_info, which likely exists for a parallel purpose, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_tenable_cloud_server_info or search_security_intelligence. With many siblings, this omission makes selection harder.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.