BugSecure MCP

Appeal the grade of my report

raise_appeal

Destructive

Instructions

Appeal the grade (assessed severity and reward) of one of the signed-in researcher’s own reports. BugSecure, as the appointed neutral third party, re-examines the grade (an assessor other than the grader); the organisation sees the grounds. An appeal cannot be withdrawn from here, and the number of appeals per report is limited, so only call this when the user explicitly asked to appeal; they read and approve the exact grounds on BugSecure first, next to the grade contested. Get the grade’s id from get_report (adjudication.id). Appeals must be raised before the appeal window closes.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`grounds`	Yes	Why the grade is wrong, with evidence (20–10,000 characters).
`reportId`	Yes	The report whose grade is contested (get_report).
`adjudicationId`	Yes	The grade being contested (get_report → adjudication.id).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`appeal`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: a neutral third party re-examines the grade, the organisation sees the grounds, appeals cannot be withdrawn, and the number of appeals per report is limited.

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?

The definition is front-loaded with the core action, then adds constraints and prerequisites in a logical order. It is dense but appropriately sized for a destructive, limited, approval-dependent action.

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 complexity of a destructive appeal action with a real-world consequence, the description covers the important prerequisites, limits, visibility, and ID source. Since an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters well. The description adds useful context by saying the adjudication ID comes from get_report → adjudication.id, that the report must be the researcher's own, and that the grounds must be exactly what the user approved on BugSecure.

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 states a specific verb and resource: appeal the grade of one of the signed-in researcher's own reports. It clearly distinguishes this from read-only tools like get_report and from grade_report by focusing on contesting an existing grade.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly limits use to cases where the user asked to appeal, notes that grounds must be read and approved on BugSecure first, and warns that appeals cannot be withdrawn and are limited per report. It also says appeals must be raised before the appeal window closes, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use constraints.

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