tenable-mcp

tenable_get_asset_vulnerabilities

Read-only

Retrieve vulnerabilities for a specific asset. Filter by severity, plugin, CVE, or exploit availability.

Instructions

Get vulnerabilities for a specific asset.

Example: Input: {"uuid": "123e4567-...", "severity": "critical"} Output: {"vulnerabilities": [...], "total": 5}

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_vulnerabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cve`	No
`uuid`	Yes
`limit`	No
`severity`	No
`plugin_id`	No
`exploit_available`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds output structure (vulnerabilities array with total) but omits important behaviors like pagination via limit parameter or filtering effects. Partial transparency.

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?

Highly concise: two sentences plus an example. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose. No wasted words.

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 6 parameters, no output schema, and numerous sibling tools, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain the meaning of all parameters, return format details beyond basic, or differentiation from similar tools like tenable_list_findings or tenable_search_vulnerabilities.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only partially clarifies uuid and severity via example, leaving cve, limit, plugin_id, and exploit_available unexplained. Inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'vulnerabilities for a specific asset'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like tenable_list_findings which might be broader, and tenable_get_vulnerability_details which targets a single vulnerability.

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 over alternatives like tenable_search_vulnerabilities or tenable_list_findings. The example implies usage but does not provide context or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server