action1-mcp-server

Updates record of compensating controls when remediation changes

action1_update_remediation

Destructive

Update compensating control records when remediation details change, keeping vulnerability remediation data aligned with the current CVE response.

Instructions

Updates record of compensating controls when remediation changes. Perm: manage_vulnerabilities.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`body`	No	Request body (schema: RemediationPayload)
`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.
`remediation_id`	Yes	A specific remediation ID.

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.

Changed12 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"
+  }
+}

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?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the required permission ('Perm: manage_vulnerabilities'), which is genuine value, but it omits the safety-gated execution flow (confirm=YES, dry_run default true) that materially affects how the tool behaves.

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?

Two compact sentences with the verb leading and the permission requirement appended last — no waste. The brevity borders on under-specification but the structure is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with a nested body, a confirm/dry_run gate, and an output schema, the description covers purpose and permission but not the preview-then-confirm execution model or what the update affects. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 cve_id, remediation_id, confirm, dry_run, and org_id are all documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that baseline, which is acceptable when the schema carries the load.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates record of compensating controls') tied to a remediation change, which is understandable. It does not name or differentiate from siblings like action1_create_cve_remediation or action1_delete_remediation, and the phrase 'compensating controls' is slightly opaque compared to the schema's 'remediation (compensating control) applied.'

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create/delete remediation siblings, nor any prerequisites or exclusions beyond the permission string. The agent must infer the update-vs-create distinction from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server