Checks a finding's 90+30 responsible-disclosure timer state, including notified, acknowledged, extended, public, or withdrawn status, so you can track disclosure deadlines.
Check the 90+30 responsible-disclosure timer state for a finding (notified, acked, extended, public, withdrawn).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| finding_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by enumerating the possible state values (notified, acked, extended, public, withdrawn), but leaves '90+30' unexplained and says nothing about how the timer transitions or what triggers extension.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the state enumeration is the only extra and it earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a read-only status check with no output schema, the description gives the agent enough to know what concept it queries and what states to expect, but leaves the timer mechanics and the parameter's provenance unexplained.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter, and the description says nothing about finding_id — where it comes from, its format, or expected source. The name is fairly self-explanatory but nothing compensates the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb (check) plus a precise resource (90+30 responsible-disclosure timer state for a finding) and even lists the possible states. It is clearly a disclosure-timer status check rather than the broader finding lookup in securitypass_finding_detail, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The intent is inferable — call this when you need the current state of a finding's disclosure clock — but there is no statement of when to prefer it over securitypass_finding_detail or securitypass_status, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.