Fetch a single security finding with its generated PoC payload (curl, prompt, or payload) and remediation guidance; PoC is never auto-fired.
Fetch a single finding including PoC payload (curl / prompt / payload) and remediation. PoC is generated, never auto-fired.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers one genuinely valuable, non-obvious behavioral fact: the PoC is generated and 'never auto-fired', which reassures the agent no exploit is executed. It still omits permission requirements, data source, and whether the finding must exist from a prior scan.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately qualifying the PoC behavior. No filler.
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?
No output schema or annotations exist, yet the description adequately previews return content (PoC payload and remediation). The main gap is finding_id semantics, leaving the definition minimally viable for invoking the tool correctly.
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?
The single finding_id parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description is responsible for explaining it. It only conveys implicitly that one finding is fetched, adding no format, source, or origin detail for finding_id.
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?
States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('a single finding') and enumerates the payload content (PoC curl/prompt/payload plus remediation). It does not name or distinguish itself from close siblings like securitypass_report, securitypass_run, or securitypass_status, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many securitypass_* siblings. The only usage signal is implicit: it retrieves one finding by id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.