Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
secure-kb

secure-kb

by pavnxet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

submit_result

Record a single security check result—pass, fail, n/a, or unknown—with supporting evidence so an AI coding agent can build an evidence-backed report.

Instructions

Record one check result (pass/fail/n/a/unknown) with evidence.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "status": "<status>"
    },
    "name": "submit_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
statusYes
evidenceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.9.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation via 'Record' but says nothing about whether results are overwritable, idempotent, session-scoped, or subject to rate limits — meaningful gaps for a write tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is part of why the semantics and workflow gaps above remain unaddressed.

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?

For a write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage on three parameters, the description is under-specified. It omits prerequisites, the meaning of 'id', and what happens to previously recorded results for the same check.

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. It lists the status values (already enumerated in the schema) and mentions 'evidence', but never explains what 'id' refers to — presumably a check id from get_check/search_checks — nor whether evidence is required for certain statuses.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Record one check result') and enumerates the accepted status values, which is more than a tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling start_report or clarify the relationship between recording results and starting a report.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the read-only siblings (get_check, search_checks) or start_report. Notably, it never states the prerequisite that a report must presumably be started first, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools