tenable-mcp

tenable_search_plugins

Read-only

Search for Tenable plugins by name, family, CVE, or severity to find applicable vulnerability checks.

Instructions

Search for Tenable plugins by name, family, CVE, or other criteria.

Example: Input: {"query": "Apache Log4j", "cve": "CVE-2021-44228", "limit": 10} Output: {"plugins": [...], "total": 3}

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_search_plugins"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cve`	No
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`family`	No
`severity`	No
`plugin_id`	No
`plugin_type`	No
`exploit_available`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a read operation. The description adds that it searches based on criteria and returns a list with total count, but does not disclose pagination behavior, error handling, or rate limits. With annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise: one sentence defining the tool and a practical example. Every sentence adds value, and the example is front-loaded. No unnecessary text.

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 tool has 8 optional parameters, no output schema, and annotations only provide readOnlyHint, the description is too sparse. It does not explain how multiple criteria combine, result ordering, or behavior when no results. The example helps but is insufficient for complete understanding.

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. However, it only mentions a few parameters (name, family, CVE) and omits others like severity, plugin_id, exploit_available. The example shows query, cve, limit but not all. Insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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 it searches for Tenable plugins by name, family, CVE, or other criteria. The example reinforces the purpose. It distinguishes from siblings like tenable_get_plugin_details (single plugin) and tenable_list_findings (different scope).

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tenable_get_plugin_details or tenable_search_vulnerabilities. The description only provides an example but no context for when it is appropriate or not.

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

Deploy Server