Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
futurevuls-mcp

futurevuls-mcp

by keides2
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

futurevuls_get_task_detail

Retrieve detailed information, including status and severity, for a specific vulnerability management task by providing its task ID and optional group name.

Instructions

特定のタスクの詳細情報を取得

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>"
    },
    "name": "futurevuls_get_task_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYesタスクID
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?

No annotations exist, and the description does not disclose any behavioral traits such as idempotency, side effects, required permissions, or return value structure. For a presumably read-only tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

Description is very short—one sentence. While concise, it lacks informational density. Not wasteful, but could be more informative in the same space.

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?

No output schema, no annotations, and minimal description. For a tool that returns 'detailed information', it does not hint at what details are included (e.g., severity, status), leaving the agent underinformed.

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%, with both parameters described adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what's in the schema, so 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?

Description states 'Get detailed information of a specific task' which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'futurevuls_get_tasks' which might list tasks, so purpose clarity is good but not excellent.

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 versus alternatives. No mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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