Skip to main content
Glama

Record Finding Triage Decision

findings_triage
Destructive

Record a tenant-scoped triage decision for a vulnerability, specifying decision, justification, and optional expiry to update the exception store.

Instructions

Record a tenant-scoped finding triage decision to the exception store.

    Writes the same entry as the REST ``POST /v1/findings/triage`` endpoint.
    Requires an admin operator + ``findings:write`` scope. A ``not_affected``
    decision requires an OpenVEX ``justification``.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonNoHuman audit reason for recording the decision.
packageNoAffected package name, or '*' for all packages (default).*
assigneeNoOwner recorded for the triage entry.
decisionNoDecision: under_investigation, affected, or not_affected.under_investigation
tenant_idNoTenant scope for the triage entry and audit logging.default
expires_atNoOptional ISO-8601 expiry for the triage entry.
queue_stateNoQueue state: open, assigned, reviewing, or decided.open
server_nameNoOptional MCP server / asset scope for the decision.
justificationNoOpenVEX justification (required for not_affected), e.g. vulnerable_code_not_present.
operator_roleNoOperator role for this write action (audit).viewer
decision_reasonNoFree-text rationale for the decision.
operator_scopesNoComma-separated operator scopes (audit).
vulnerability_idNoVulnerability/advisory id being triaged (e.g. CVE-2024-1234).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and non-read-only behavior, so the description's 'Writes the same entry as REST POST endpoint' aligns with that. It adds extra transparency by specifying the admin operator requirement, scope, and the justification rule for not_affected, which go beyond the annotations.

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 concise—three sentences that front-load the purpose, then provide a REST equivalence and requirements. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, return values don't need explanation. The description covers prerequisites, scoping, and a critical parameter constraint. For a write operation with many parameters, this is adequately complete, though it could elaborate on side effects or idempotency, but annotations partly cover behavioral aspects.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has full coverage of all 13 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by clarifying that the entry is tenant-scoped (relevant to tenant_id) and explicitly states the justification requirement for not_affected, tying to a parameter. This goes slightly above baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the action: 'Record a tenant-scoped finding triage decision to the exception store.' This specifies a verb and resource, and the mention of the REST endpoint differentiates it from potential siblings. It is unambiguous about what the tool does.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides usage context by stating the necessary admin operator and findings:write scope, and mandates a justification for not_affected decisions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the prerequisites are clear enough for an agent to know when to use it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/msaad00/agent-bom'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server