Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
winsecure-mcp

winsecure-mcp

by prinzalx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Save assessment

save_assessment

Write an effort assessment back to a to-do item, setting its status to assessed or dismissed.

Instructions

Write an effort assessment back to a to-do (the non-sampling path). Sets the status to assessed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
reasonYesShort justification
dismissNoSet the status to dismissed instead of assessed
todo_idYesThe id from list_todos
confidenceNoHow sure the assessment is. Defaults to medium
affected_partNo(d) name the part program when only part of a suite is affected; null when the whole program is
exe_swap_onlyYes(a) only the .exe/file has to be replaced
new_setup_neededYes(b) a new setup from the vendor is needed
breaking_change_expectedYes(c) a breaking change is expected

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.6.6
    • changedInput schema / properties / affected_part / description
      Previous value: -"(d) name the part program when only part of a suite is affected"New value: +"(d) name the part program when only part of a suite is affected; null when the whole program is"
    • changedInput schema / properties / affected_part / type
      Previous value: -"string"New value: +[
+  "string",
+  "null"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the core side effect: status is set to 'assessed' (with 'dismissed' available via schema). It does not say whether this overwrites an existing assessment, requires prior assessment, is idempotent, or what errors can occur.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the mutation and its resulting state change front-loaded. Nothing is wasted and the key effect is stated first.

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 an 8-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the write and status outcome but omits prerequisites (must the to-do be previously assessed?), return/error behavior, and what 'non-sampling path' actually governs. The rich schema compensates on parameters, but the behavioral envelope is thin.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 8 parameters including the (a)/(b)/(c)/(d) tokens, confidence default, and dismiss flag are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax or meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: writing an effort assessment back to a to-do, plus the resulting status change. The parenthetical '(the non-sampling path)' hints at a distinct route versus a sampling sibling, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.

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?

'The non-sampling path' implies an alternative exists, but the description never names it or states when to pick this tool over it. Usage is implied (writing back a non-sampled assessment) rather than explicitly bounded.

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