BugSecure MCP

Get an organization’s report statistics

get_org_report_stats

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve monthly report counts by status, severity mix, payouts, and payment standing for your organization. Needs administrator access.

Instructions

Report statistics for an organisation the signed-in user belongs to (it must have enabled AI triage access): monthly report counts by status, the claimed-severity mix, monthly payouts, and its payment standing (certificates issued, settled and overdue). Organisation ids: list_my_organizations. Needs an Administrator seat in that organisation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`months`	No	How many months of trends and payouts (1–24).
`organizationId`	Yes	Organization id (from list_my_organizations).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`trends`	No
`payouts`	No
`standing`	No
`severityDistribution`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds the key behavioral constraints: administrative role, AI triage access, and organization membership. It also previews the output categories, so an agent knows what kind of data to expect.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two tight sentences front-load the core function, then list output categories and prerequisites without filler. Every clause earns its place.

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?

Given the two well-documented parameters and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the important operational context: who can call it, prerequisites, and what is returned. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and already documents both months and organizationId, including the source list_my_organizations. The description repeats the organizationId provenance but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 resource ('report statistics for an organisation') and enumerates exactly what is included: monthly counts by status, severity mix, payouts, and payment standing. This distinguishes it from sibling statistics tools like get_program_stats without requiring schema inspection.

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 provides clear context: the tool only applies to organisations the signed-in user belongs to, requires AI triage access, and needs an Administrator seat. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use alternatives, but the scope and prerequisites are unmistakable.

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