tenable-mcp

tenable_get_vulnerability_details

Read-only

Retrieve detailed information about a specific vulnerability using its vulnerability ID or plugin ID. Includes CVE references and other details.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific vulnerability or plugin.

Provide either vuln_id (finding UUID) or plugin_id (Nessus plugin ID).

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

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tenable_get_vulnerability_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`vuln_id`	No
`plugin_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description is consistent with the 'readOnlyHint' annotation, indicating it is a read operation. The example output adds context about the return structure, but no additional behavioral traits (e.g., rate limits, error handling) are disclosed beyond what annotations already cover.

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 short and to the point, with the purpose stated in the first sentence. The parameter guidance and example are efficient, with no wasted words.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple get tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose and parameter choice but lacks details on return value structure beyond a partial example. It fails to mention what happens if both parameters are provided or if neither is.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining that 'vuln_id' is a finding UUID and 'plugin_id' is a Nessus plugin ID. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions. However, it does not clarify that both parameters are optional, which could lead to ambiguity.

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 states 'Get detailed information about a specific vulnerability or plugin.' It clearly identifies the action and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools that might perform bulk searches. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'tenable_get_plugin_details', which may cause confusion.

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?

The description gives parameter guidance ('Provide either vuln_id or plugin_id'), but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'tenable_search_vulnerabilities' or 'tenable_get_plugin_details'. No when/when-not conditions are provided.

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

Deploy Server