tenable-mcp

tenable_get_asset

Read-only

Retrieve detailed information about a specific asset by providing its UUID.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific asset.

Example: Input: {"uuid": "123e4567-e89b-12d3-a456-426614174000"} Output: {"id": "...", "hostname": "server01", "ipv4": "10.0.0.1", ...}

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": {
      "uuid": "<uuid>"
    },
    "name": "tenable_get_asset"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`uuid`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds an example output showing fields like id, hostname, and ipv4, which provides some behavioral context. However, it does not disclose potential errors, permissions, or rate limits, so it adds only moderate value beyond the annotation.

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: one sentence followed by an example. Every word is functional, with no unnecessary phrasing. It is well-structured and easily digestible.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and provides an example output. It lacks information on error handling or behavior when the asset is not found, but it is reasonably complete for a simple retrieval 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It provides an example showing the uuid parameter with a sample value, which hints at its purpose but does not explicitly explain that it is the asset identifier. For a single parameter, this is adequate but not fully clarifying.

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 tool retrieves detailed information about a specific asset. The verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed information about a specific asset' are precise. Additionally, the tool name combined with sibling tools like tenable_list_assets implies it targets a single asset, distinguishing it effectively.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tenable_list_assets or tenable_get_asset_vulnerabilities. The description lacks usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions, relying solely on the tool name and parameters to imply usage.

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

Deploy Server