armorcode-mcp

Control Finding

armorcode_control_finding

Control a security finding by providing a reason and notes, with optional dry-run mode to preview changes before applying.

Instructions

Control Finding. 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>"
    },
    "name": "armorcode_control_finding"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description only mentions a default parameter value. It does not disclose whether this tool mutates state, what side effects occur, or any prerequisites.

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?

Too short to be useful. While brief, it sacrifices essential information. It is under-specified rather than concise.

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?

With 4 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and many sibling tools, the description is woefully incomplete. It does not enable correct tool selection or invocation.

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 coverage is 0%. The description only mentions that dryRun defaults true, but does not explain the purpose of findingId, notes, or reason. Agents cannot infer parameter meanings.

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 'Control Finding' is nearly tautological. It does not specify what action 'control' performs on a finding, especially with many sibling tools that have clearer verbs like accept, block, confirm, suppress.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like armorcode_block_finding, armorcode_confirm_finding, etc. The description lacks context for differentiation.

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

Deploy Server