Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
futurevuls-mcp

futurevuls-mcp

by keides2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

futurevuls_generate_weekly_report

Generate a weekly vulnerability report with customizable date range, minimum CVSS score, and group filter for targeted security tracking.

Instructions

週次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_weekly_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
start_dateNo開始日 (YYYYMMDD形式、未指定時は先週月曜日)
end_dateNo終了日 (YYYYMMDD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?

With no annotations and a terse description, the tool's behavioral traits are opaque. It does not disclose whether the report is generated synchronously, what format or destination it produces, or any side effects. The description only states the basic action without elaborating on outcomes.

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 single-sentence description is concise and contains no superfluous information. However, it may be too brief; a slightly expanded description could improve clarity without sacrificing conciseness.

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 absence of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to understand the complete behavior, including return values, error conditions, or the meaning of the generated report. The tool has 4 optional parameters, but no guidance on how they affect the output.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters, including defaults and format. The tool description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema offers. As schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 '週次脆弱性レポートを生成' clearly states the tool generates a weekly vulnerability report. While it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like futurevuls_generate_tm_report, the name and context imply a weekly scope, making the purpose reasonably clear.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., futurevuls_generate_tm_report for a different period). There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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