action1-mcp-server

Lists past remediation actions for a specific vulnerability

action1_list_cve_remediations

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists past remediation actions for a specific CVE so you can review how the vulnerability was addressed.

Instructions

Lists past remediation actions for a specific vulnerability. Perm: view_vulnerabilities.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`from`	No	Provide the number of the first record to be returned.
`limit`	No	Set the maximum number of items to be returned (the page size).
`cursor`	No	next_cursor of the previous call; takes precedence over from.
`cve_id`	Yes	The unique identifier of a CVE (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), e.g. CVE-2005-2300
`filter`	No	Provide a case-insensitive substring to filter and narrow down returned results (i.e., if...
`org_id`	No	Org UUID.
`sortby`	No	Define the sorting order by a certain field.
`verbose`	No	Skip per-item compactor.
`auto_paginate`	No	Walk pages until limit or the size budget; then continue with next_cursor.
`response_format`	No	Output format. Default markdown.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`count`	Yes
`items`	Yes
`total`	No
`has_more`	No
`next_cursor`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed11 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"

changedInput schema / properties / auto_paginate / description

Previous value: -"Walk all pages."New value: +"Walk pages until limit or the size budget; then continue with next_cursor."

changedInput schema / properties / cursor / description

Previous value: -"Pagination cursor."New value: +"next_cursor of the previous call; takes precedence over from."

addedInput schema / properties / from / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```
addedInput schema / properties / from / minimum
```
Added value: +0
```
addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
```
Added value: +50000
```
addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```

changedInput schema / properties / limit / type

Previous value: -"number"New value: +"integer"

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 / items / items / properties

Added value: +{
+  "comment": {},
+  "creation_date": {},
+  "product_name": {},
+  "remediated_by": {},
+  "remediation_id": {}
+}

First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations provide good behavioral transparency (`readOnlyHint: true`, `destructiveHint: false`, `openWorldHint: true`), which is the primary source of behavioral info here. The description adds nothing substantial beyond confirming the intent of the read-only operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is extremely concise, fitting the tool's purpose into two short sentences. It is efficient and to the point.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the high detail in the input schema and reassuring annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description is largely complete for the AI agent. The main gap is the lack of specific usage guidance against sibling tools, but this is minor.

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 coverage is 100%, providing extensive details for all 10 parameters. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond what is already present in the structured schema and annotations. Baseline score of 3 applies.

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 title and description clearly state that the tool lists past remediation actions for a specific vulnerability. While the description could distinguish this from other listing tools (e.g., listing vulnerabilities), its purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The description does not provide specific guidance on *when* to use this tool versus related listing tools like `action1_list_vulnerabilities` or `action1_create_cve_remediation`. It only specifies the required permission.

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

Deploy Server