Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
futurevuls-mcp

futurevuls-mcp

by keides2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

futurevuls_get_org_groups

Retrieve a paginated list of organization groups, such as ERMS or DBIPS, from FutureVuls. Filter by group name and set page size up to 1000 entries.

Instructions

組織のグループ一覧を取得

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_org_groups"
  }
}

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

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description should disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior or authentication needs. The single sentence '組織のグループ一覧を取得' offers no such details, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise but lacks structure. It front-loads the purpose but omits any additional context that could further aid understanding without excessive verbosity.

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 an output schema and annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. For a tool with three parameters and multiple siblings, more context about the result format or relationship to other tools would be beneficial.

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 three parameters (page, limit, group), achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, so 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 clearly states that the tool retrieves a list of organization groups, specifying the verb 'get' and the resource 'org groups'. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'futurevuls_list_groups', which likely has a similar purpose.

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, such as 'futurevuls_list_groups' or 'futurevuls_get_group_members'. It lacks any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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