Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
futurevuls-mcp

futurevuls-mcp

by keides2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

futurevuls_get_groupset_servers

Retrieve a paginated list of servers in a specified group set, such as ERMS or DBIPS, for vulnerability management.

Instructions

グループセットのサーバ一覧を取得

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_get_groupset_servers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoページ番号 (デフォルト: 1)
limitNo1ページあたりの件数 (デフォルト: 20, 最大: 1000)
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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It only states 'get list' without mentioning read-only nature, side effects, authentication, pagination behavior beyond schema, or response structure.

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?

Single sentence with no waste. Front-loaded with verb and resource. Could be expanded slightly for clarity but remains concise.

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 no output schema and no annotations, description is underspecified. Missing context about pagination, required parameters, result format, and how this tool relates to similar ones like futurevuls_get_servers.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond what schema already provides (page, limit, group descriptions). Could have clarified group parameter semantics or default behavior.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description uses specific verb '取得' (get) and resource 'グループセットのサーバ一覧' (list of servers in a group set), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like futurevuls_get_servers which likely gets all servers.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention that group parameter is likely required for meaningful results, nor does it differentiate from futurevuls_get_servers or futurevuls_get_group_members.

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