action1-mcp-server

Documents applied compensating controls for a specific vulnerability

action1_create_cve_remediation

Destructive

Documents applied compensating controls for a specific CVE by recording the affected product and remediation comment, with preview and confirmation safeguards.

Instructions

Documents applied compensating controls for a specific vulnerability. Perm: manage_vulnerabilities.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	Yes	Request body (schema: RemediationPayloadPost)
`cve_id`	Yes	The unique identifier of a CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), e.g. CVE-2005-2300
`org_id`	No	Org UUID.
`confirm`	No	Required to execute. Exact string "YES".
`dry_run`	No	Default true (preview). Set false to execute.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tool`	No
`comment`	No
`dry_run`	No
`would_send`	No
`product_name`	No
`creation_date`	No
`remediated_by`	No
`remediation_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed13 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

addedInput schema / properties / body / properties

Added value: +{
+  "comment": {
+    "description": "A description of the remediation (compensating control) applied.",
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "product_name": {
+    "description": "The name of the vulnerable software product being remediated.",
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+}

addedInput schema / properties / body / required

Added value: +[
+  "comment",
+  "product_name"
+]

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / comment
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / creation_date
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / dry_run
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / product_name
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / remediated_by
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / remediation_id
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / tool
```
Added value: +{}
```
addedOutput schema / properties / would_send
```
Added value: +{}
```

First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful permission requirement, but it does not elaborate on the destructive nature of the operation, the confirm/dry_run execution flow, or what happens to existing remediation data.

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?

It is very short and front-loaded: the core action is stated first, followed by the permission constraint. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity leaves important usage context unstated.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With a rich input schema, an output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description does not need to explain parameters or return values. However, for a destructive mutation with a required confirm token and a dry_run default, the description is thin on the operational context an agent would need to invoke it confidently.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains cve_id, body, org_id, confirm, and dry_run. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is high.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource: documenting applied compensating controls for a specific vulnerability. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish this create operation from sibling remediation tools such as action1_update_remediation, action1_delete_remediation, or action1_list_cve_remediations.

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?

It names a required permission (manage_vulnerabilities) but gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling remediation tools. There is no mention of prerequisites beyond permission, no exclusions, and no indication of how this relates to listing or updating existing remediations.

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

Deploy Server