BugSecure MCP

Assign a report to myself

assign_report

DestructiveIdempotent

Assign a security report to yourself as its triager, replacing any existing assignee. Take ownership of reports within your opted-in organisation after your approval.

Instructions

Assign a report of an opted-in organisation the user belongs to to the signed-in user, as the organisation’s triager for it, replacing any current assignee. Assigning to someone else is done on the BugSecure website. The researcher is not notified. The user approves it first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reportId`	Yes	Report id (from list_org_reports).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`report`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses that the operation replaces any current assignee, that the researcher is not notified, and that the user approves the assignment first. These are meaningful behavioral details that help an agent anticipate side effects.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the alternative channel and important side effects. It is compact and every sentence contributes useful information, with only minor wording density.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter mutation tool with an output schema, the description covers eligibility, role, overwrite behavior, the alternative for assigning to others, and notification/approval effects. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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% and reportId already has a schema description pointing to list_org_reports. The tool description does not add extra parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: assigning a report to the signed-in user as the organisation's triager, while explicitly noting it replaces any current assignee. This clearly differentiates the tool from generic report-management siblings and matches the title.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear eligibility context (reports from opted-in organisations the user belongs to) and explicitly states that assigning to someone else is done on the website, providing a decision boundary. It does not name sibling tools, but the when-to-use guidance is still clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.