tenable-mcp

tenable_was_export

Read-only

Export web application vulnerability findings from Tenable WAS scans. Filter by scan status and start date to retrieve specific results.

Instructions

Export Web Application Scanning (WAS) findings.

Retrieves web application vulnerability findings with optional date and status filters.

Example: Input: {"scan_status": "completed", "scan_started_after": "2024/01/01"} Output: {"was_findings": [...], "total": 5}

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_was_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`scan_status`	No
`scan_started_after`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. Description adds context about filtering and output format, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements beyond the read-only nature.

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: three sentences and an example. Each sentence adds value—purpose, filtering options, and an illustrative example. No superfluous content.

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?

Given no output schema and 3 optional parameters, the description provides an example output shape (array and total) but does not detail individual finding fields. The limit parameter is not explained. Adequate for basic use but missing details for advanced usage.

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?

Schema has 0% description coverage for parameters. The description clarifies that scan_status and scan_started_after are optional filters, but does not explain the limit parameter. Partially compensates for the missing schema descriptions but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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?

Clearly states 'Export Web Application Scanning (WAS) findings' and 'Retrieves web application vulnerability findings', specifying the resource and action. Distinguishes from siblings like tenable_download_scan_export by focusing on WAS findings output as JSON.

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?

Provides an example and mentions optional date/status filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like tenable_search_vulnerabilities or tenable_export_scan. Usage is implied by the tool name and description, but lacks explicit guidance 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