Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
futurevuls-mcp

futurevuls-mcp

by keides2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

futurevuls_generate_tm_report

Generate a vulnerability report for technical meetings with filters for date range, minimum CVSS score, and group.

Instructions

TM会議用の脆弱性レポートを生成

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "futurevuls_generate_tm_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
start_dateNo開始日 (YYYY/MM/DD形式、未指定時は先週月曜日)
end_dateNo終了日 (YYYY/MM/DD形式、未指定時は今週日曜日)
min_cvssNo最小CVSS v3スコア (デフォルト: 9.0)
groupNo対象グループ名 (ERMS, DBIPS, GPF等)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as whether the report is generated as a file, displayed, or returned, or any side effects like data mutation. For a report generation tool, key details like output format or authentication needs are missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. While it is efficient, it borders on under-specification, missing critical details that would justify a 5. It earns its place but lacks depth.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool has 4 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the report's scope, output format, or any preconditions. For a tool generating a report, this omission leaves significant gaps for the agent.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., start_date, end_date, min_cvss, group). It neither enriches nor contradicts the schema.

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 verb 'generate' and resource 'vulnerability report for TM meeting', making the purpose unambiguous. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'futurevuls_generate_weekly_report', the context of 'TM meeting' provides enough differentiation for an AI agent to recognize it as a specific report type.

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 or prerequisites. It only states what it does, leaving the agent without context for decision-making. No exclusions or when-not-to-use information is given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools