action1-mcp-server

List missing updates

action1_list_updates

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all pending software updates to identify necessary patching tasks. Refine results by filtering criteria like security severity, approval status, or package type to manage remediation.

Instructions

List missing updates. Gets a list of all missing updates. Use parameters to filter out updates in the returned results. Perm: approve_updates, view_dashboards, manage_automations.

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.
`custom`	No	Specify if the package is custom (yes) or builtin (no).
`fields`	No	Add FIELDS parameter to query extended data.
`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.
`builtin`	No	Specify if the package is builtin (yes) or custom (no).
`verbose`	No	Skip per-item compactor.
`only_latest`	No	Specify if you want to exclude superseded updates. By default, 'yes'.
`auto_paginate`	No	Walk pages until limit or the size budget; then continue with next_cursor.
`approval_status`	No	Specify the update status.
`response_format`	No	Output format. Default markdown.
`security_severity`	No	Specify the severity level, e.g., security_severity=-Critical (for all non-critical).
`update_sla_end_day`	No	The maximum value of the remediation deadline in the SLA.
`update_sla_start_day`	No	The minimum value of the remediation deadline in the SLA.

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: +{
+  "builtin": {},
+  "description": {},
+  "id": {},
+  "internal_notes": {},
+  "kb_number": {},
+  "name": {},
+  "optional": {},
+  "organization_ids": {},
+  "reboot_needed": {},
+  "recommended": {},
+  "scope": {},
+  "self": {},
+  "size": {},
+  "status": {},
+  "type": {},
+  "update_type": {},
+  "vendor": {},
+  "versions": {}
+}

First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required permissions (approve_updates, view_dashboards, manage_automations), which is real value not in the annotations. It says nothing about default scoping (which orgs/endpoints are included) or the default 'only_latest=yes' behavior that affects results.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The opening two sentences say the same thing twice ("List missing updates. Gets a list of all missing updates."), which is pure waste. The parameter sentence is boilerplate that also earns nothing, leaving only the permission clause as substantive.

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 full output schema and annotations covering safety, the remaining burden is scope and disambiguation. The description never states whether updates are aggregated across the enterprise or scoped by org_id, nor how this differs from the two similarly named siblings — a meaningful gap for a 17-parameter list tool.

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% across all 17 parameters, including enum semantics and defaults, so the schema carries parameter meaning fully. The description's only parameter statement ("use parameters to filter") adds no semantics beyond the schema, which is the baseline-3 case.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The verb+resource (list missing updates) is clear, but the first two sentences are a restatement of the title and name rather than an explanation of scope. Critically, the sibling set contains action1_list_missing_updates and action1_list_endpoint_missing_updates, and nothing here distinguishes this tool from them, leaving an agent unable to disambiguate near-duplicates.

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?

"Use parameters to filter out updates in the returned results" is generic filler with no when-to-use condition or exclusion. No guidance is given on choosing between this tool, action1_list_missing_updates, or action1_list_endpoint_missing_updates. The only concrete usage signal is the permission list.

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

Deploy Server