Lists recorded findings and supports filtering by severity or status to focus triage, reporting, and remediation.
List recorded findings, optionally filtered by severity or status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| status | No | ||
| severity | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and discloses almost nothing: it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether results are paginated or ordered, whether an empty result set is possible, or whether a prior load_engagement is required. "Recorded findings" hints at persistence but adds little behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficiently written, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with two undocumented string parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation in the schema, the description is the only source of behavioral information and it omits return shape, ordering, pagination, and valid filter values. For a retrieval tool whose output an agent must interpret, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it only names the two filters (severity, status) without indicating accepted values, case sensitivity, or whether they are free-text or constrained enums. It adds meaning over the bare schema property names, but not enough for an agent to construct valid filter values confidently.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ("List recorded findings") plus the two filter dimensions, which is clearer than a bare name restatement. It does not differentiate from nearby siblings such as pentest_zap_alerts or pentest_report, which also surface recorded findings, so an agent cannot fully disambiguate from the text alone.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase "optionally filtered by severity or status" implies the read/list use case and that filters are optional, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over pentest_zap_alerts or pentest_report, nor any stated prerequisites (e.g., an engagement must be loaded first).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.