Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Latent Defense MCP Server

Latent Defense MCP Server

Official
by latent-defense
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

retry_ticket

Re-run remediation for a failed security ticket by providing its ticket ID.

Instructions

Re-run remediation from a failed ticket.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "ticket_id": "<ticket_id>"
    },
    "name": "retry_ticket"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
ticket_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 're-run' without explaining side effects (e.g., resetting steps, creating new entries). The behavior is under-specified for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Extremely concise (one sentence) but lacks essential information. Conciseness is positive but not at the expense of clarity and completeness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema and one parameter, the description is woefully incomplete. No mention of prerequisites, return values, or ticket state requirements. Sibling tools provide context but it is not leveraged.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the 'ticket_id' parameter. No additional meaning, format, or constraints are provided beyond the schema name.

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 clearly states the action ('re-run remediation') and the resource ('from a failed ticket'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_remediation_ticket' (creates new) and 'get_ticket' (retrieves info).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It implies use for failed tickets but does not specify conditions or exclude others (e.g., successful tickets). Sibling tools like 'get_ticket_steps' or 'update_ticket_status' are not differentiated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools