armorcode-mcp

Exploitability Comment

armorcode_add_exploitability_comment

Add an exploitability comment to a security finding, designating it as exploitable or not exploitable with a reason. Dry run mode available.

Instructions

Structured exploitable/notexploitable comment. dryRun defaults true.

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": {
      "findingId": "<findingId>",
      "exploitable": "<exploitable>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "armorcode_add_exploitability_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`dryRun`	No
`reason`	Yes
`findingId`	Yes
`exploitable`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

D1.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

Without annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. Only a single default value ('dryRun defaults true') is mentioned, with no explanation of side effects, commit behavior, required permissions, or outcomes. Critical behavioral context is missing.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely short (one sentence) but severely under-specified. It fails to earn its place by omitting essential information; conciseness here sacrifices completeness, making the tool nearly unusable from the description alone.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides almost no contextual information. A user cannot understand what the tool does, how parameters work, or what to expect as a result.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description adds no meaning for three required parameters (findingId, exploitable, reason) beyond the schema types. Only 'dryRun' is mentioned with its default, leaving most parameters semantically unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase ('Structured exploitable/notexploitable comment') that describes what the comment is, not what the tool does. It does not explicitly state the action (e.g., 'Adds...') nor the target object (finding), making the purpose ambiguous without relying on the tool name and parameters.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'armorcode_add_comment' (generic comment) or 'armorcode_set_product_exploitability'. No context for appropriate use cases or alternatives is given.

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

Deploy Server