Retrieve vulnerabilities from Tenable Vulnerability Management to support AI-driven prioritization and remediation planning; use the limit parameter to control results.
List vulnerabilities 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, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, pagination, default page size behavior, or rate limits. A single sentence restating the name is insufficient for a listing endpoint with zero annotation coverage.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
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, but with no annotations, an undocumented limit parameter, and no listing/pagination behavior, the definition is too thin for the agent to invoke it confidently.
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 single 'limit' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and no default explanation in the schema beyond a value of 100. The description does not mention the parameter at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 clear verb ('List') and resource ('vulnerabilities') scoped to Tenable Vulnerability Management, which separates it from Nessus-hosted tools. However, it does not distinguish itself from close siblings like get_tenable_cloud_vulnerability (singular retrieval) or list_nessus_vulnerabilities, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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 list call versus the singular get_tenable_cloud_vulnerability or the Nessus equivalents, and no mention of prerequisites or pagination expectations. The agent gets context from the name only.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.