BugSecure MCP

Save the public disclosure draft of my report

save_disclosure_draft

Destructive

Write the public disclosure draft of one of the signed-in researcher’s own reports (fixed or closed, on a public programme, graded): title, summary and write-up, replacing the current draft.

Instructions

Write the public disclosure draft of one of the signed-in researcher’s own reports (fixed or closed, on a public programme, graded): title, summary and write-up, replacing the current draft. Saving NEVER publishes: it clears any approval, and the disclosure goes public only when the researcher and the organisation both approve it on the BugSecure website. A published disclosure is refused. Read the draft and its revision with get_report first; the user approves the new text on BugSecure, next to the old.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	Yes	Public title (3–160 characters).
`summary`	Yes	Public summary (10–500 characters).
`writeup`	Yes	Public write-up (20–20,000 characters).
`reportId`	Yes	Your report (get_report).
`revision`	Yes	get_report → disclosure.revision (0 when there is no draft yet).
`creditResearcher`	Yes	Show your username on the published disclosure.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`disclosure`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses that saving replaces the current draft, never publishes, and clears any existing approval, plus that publication requires dual approval from researcher and organisation. That is exactly the mutation side-effect and approval-reset context an agent needs before overwriting a draft.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the 'NEVER publishes' safety point, and every clause is substantive. The closing sentence about approving the text on BugSecure slightly repeats the earlier dual-approval statement, which is the only waste.

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?

Covers the mutation semantics, approval-reset behavior, refusal condition, and required read-first workflow; with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, return values need no explanation. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning for 'revision' — it comes from get_report's disclosure.revision and guards against editing a stale draft — and frames title/summary/writeup as the replacement draft body. It does not explain creditResearcher at all, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Write the public disclosure draft of one of the signed-in researcher's own reports') and narrows scope with concrete eligibility gates (fixed or closed, public programme, graded). This distinguishes it clearly from siblings such as update_report_status, add_report_comment or submit_report without needing the schema opened.

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?

Gives explicit prerequisites: call get_report first to read the draft and its revision, and the new text is approved by the user on BugSecure next to the old. It also names the failure condition (a published disclosure is refused), so the agent knows when not to call.

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