tenable-mcp

tenable_get_plugin_details

Read-only

Retrieve detailed information about a specific plugin, including CVSS scores, CVE references, solution, and exploit details.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific plugin.

Includes CVSS scores, CVE references, solution, and exploit information.

Example: Input: {"plugin_id": 19506} Output: { "id": 19506, "name": "Apache Log4j ...", "cvss_base_score": 10.0, "cve": ["CVE-2021-44228"], ... }

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": {
      "plugin_id": "<plugin_id>"
    },
    "name": "tenable_get_plugin_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`plugin_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description fully aligns with the readOnlyHint annotation, describing a read operation that returns detailed plugin information. It discloses the nature of the output without contradicting 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 concise, with two informative sentences and an example. It is front-loaded with the primary action and avoids unnecessary words. The truncated example is acceptable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the output contents (CVSS, CVE, solution, exploit). Combined with the read-only annotation, an agent has sufficient context to use the tool correctly.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage for the single required parameter plugin_id. The description provides an example but does not explain what the parameter represents or its format. While the parameter is straightforward, the description should clarify its meaning given no schema description.

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 'Get detailed information about a specific plugin' and lists included elements (CVSS scores, CVE references, solution, exploit). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tenable_search_plugins, which are for searching rather than retrieving details.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage when you have a specific plugin ID, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like search_plugins. No exclusion or alternative guidance is provided, so the agent must infer from the name and siblings.

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

Deploy Server