secobserve-mcp

Trigger SecObserve Built-In Scan

secobserve_trigger_scan

Trigger a built-in OSV or VulnerableCode scan on product components to generate vulnerability findings. Specify scanner and product ID; optional branch limits to one. Use after SBOM import to get observations.

Instructions

Run SecObserve's own OSV or VulnerableCode scan over a product's known components.

These scanners need no report: they look up the components SecObserve already has, which is why they are the usual follow-up to an SBOM import. Each must be enabled on the product (osv_enabled / vulnerablecode_enabled) or the call is rejected. The request blocks until the scan finishes, so a product with many components can exceed the HTTP timeout.

Args: params (TriggerScanInput): Validated input containing: - scanner (str): "osv" or "vulnerablecode". - product_id (int): Product to scan. - branch_id (Optional[int]): One branch, or every branch when omitted.

Returns: str: observations_new, observations_updated and observations_resolved for the scan, one per line.

Examples: - Use when: "re-check product 12 against osv.dev" -> scanner="osv", product_id=12 - Use when: right after importing an SBOM, to get findings for its components. - Don't use when: the product has no components yet (import an SBOM first).

Error Handling: 400 "OSV scan is not enabled for product X" means enable it on the product first (secobserve_update, data={"osv_enabled": true}). A timeout does not cancel the scan -- check secobserve_list(resource="vulnerability_checks") rather than retrying blind.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`params`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: the call blocks until the scan finishes and can exceed HTTP timeout, a timeout does not cancel the scan, and the call is rejected if the scanner is not enabled on the product. It also explains the error response meaning and how to recover. This is rich behavioral disclosure that goes well beyond the structured fields.

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 well-structured with clear sections: a one-sentence summary, a short explanation of why it's used, explicit usage examples, and error handling. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important scoping information (no report needed, follow-up to SBOM import) is front-loaded. It is longer than a one-liner but appropriately so for a tool with blocking behavior and error recovery guidance.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (blocking call, two scanner types, product/branch scoping, error handling), the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, what can go wrong, how to recover, and what the return value looks like. The output schema exists, so the description doesn't need to detail the return format beyond the one-line summary it provides. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% per the context signal, but the description compensates by explaining the meaning of scanner ('osv' or 'vulnerablecode'), product_id (product to scan), and branch_id (one branch or every branch when omitted). It also gives concrete examples mapping natural-language requests to parameter values. The only minor gap is that it doesn't restate the enum values in the description, but the schema already provides those, and the description adds the semantic context.

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 states a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('SecObserve's own OSV or VulnerableCode scan over a product's known components'), and clearly distinguishes it from other tools by explaining it needs no report and is a follow-up to SBOM import. It also names the two scanner types and the product scope, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings like secobserve_api_import or secobserve_run_periodic_task.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use it ('usual follow-up to an SBOM import', 're-check product 12 against osv.dev') and when not to use it ('Don't use when: the product has no components yet'). It also names the alternative action for enabling scanners (secobserve_update) and the alternative for checking scan results (secobserve_list). This is explicit when/when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

Deploy Server