Retrieve assets from Tenable Vulnerability Management to inspect inventory and support vulnerability management. Use it to list cloud assets for prioritization and remediation planning.
List assets from Tenable Vulnerability Management.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
| 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 carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose pagination behavior, return volume, whether the limit parameter caps results, or any permissions/rate-limit considerations, which are relevant for a list endpoint.
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 clear sentence with no waste, front-loading the action and resource.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and with only one optional parameter the surface is small. Still, for a list tool among many siblings, the description lacks scope and pagination context that would make invocation reliable.
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% and the single 'limit' parameter has no description in either the schema or the tool description. The description does not explain what the limit controls or its default behavior.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('List assets from Tenable Vulnerability Management'), which is clear enough to identify the operation. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like get_tenable_cloud_asset or list_tenable_cloud_vulnerabilities, leaving the agent to infer scope boundaries.
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. The agent must guess whether this lists all assets, filtered assets, or assets tied to a specific scan or vulnerability.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.