tenable-mcp

tenable_export_scan

Read-only

Export Tenable scan results to files in formats such as CSV, HTML, PDF, or Nessus. Provides a file ID for download.

Instructions

Export scan results.

The export is downloaded as a file. Supported formats: nessus, csv, html, pdf, db.

Example: Input: {"scan_id": 123, "format": "csv"} Output: {"file_id": "...", "format": "csv", "status": "ready"}

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "scan_id": "<scan_id>"
    },
    "name": "tenable_export_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`format`	No	nessus
`scan_id`	Yes
`chapters`	No
`password`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The annotation declares readOnlyHint=true, but the description describes an export that creates a file, implying a write operation. This is a contradiction. Additionally, the description does not disclose whether the export is asynchronous, if it modifies state, or any potential side effects.

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?

The description is relatively concise with a clear first sentence and an illustrative example. However, it could be more structured by separating key details from the example.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the lack of output schema and limited parameter description, the description omits important context such as whether the export is asynchronous, how to retrieve the file (via sibling tool), or any limitations. The behavioral contradiction further reduces completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only provides an example with scan_id and format, but does not explain the chapters or password parameters. The example uses format 'csv' while the schema default is 'nessus', which could confuse agents. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool exports scan results and lists supported formats, with an example input/output. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool tenable_download_scan_export, leaving some ambiguity about whether this initiates an export or directly provides a download.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like tenable_download_scan_export. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits into a workflow.

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

Deploy Server