Fetch the synthesized report for a completed run, including executive narrative and findings, in JSON, Markdown, or HTML format.
Fetch the synthesised report for a completed run (executive narrative + findings). format=json|markdown|html.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | json | |
| run_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read operation via 'Fetch' but does not disclose permissions, behavior for incomplete runs, rate limits, or any other operational traits beyond the report's content.
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 sentence plus a compact format specifier. It is front-loaded with the core action and free of filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.
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 simple read tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and format but leaves run_id undocumented and does not address edge cases like what happens if the run is not complete. Therefore it is adequate but with clear gaps.
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%, so the description should explain both parameters. It lists format options (json|markdown|html), mirroring the enum, but says nothing about run_id — where it comes from, its format, or its role. This is inadequate compensation for the missing schema descriptions.
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 ('synthesised report') with scope ('for a completed run') and content details ('executive narrative + findings'). It does not differentiate from sibling tools such as securitypass_finding_detail or securitypass_status, preventing a 5.
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 phrase 'for a completed run' implies a precondition but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus securitypass_status, securitypass_finding_detail, or other siblings. No when-not conditions or alternatives are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.