armorcode-mcp

Get Exception

armorcode_get_exception

Retrieve details of a security exception using its unique ID. Provides exception information for review and analysis.

Instructions

Exception details by ID.

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": {
      "exceptionId": "<exceptionId>"
    },
    "name": "armorcode_get_exception"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`exceptionId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description lacks behavioral context beyond the basic operation. It does not indicate that this is a read-only action, nor does it describe what happens if the ID is invalid or missing. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and falls short.

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?

The description is very concise at one sentence, which is appropriate for a simple retrieval tool. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format, such as stating the output or parameter context, but it is not overly verbose.

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?

Given the low complexity (single required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete. It conveys the core purpose but lacks details about return values or error handling. It is adequate but not robust.

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%, meaning the schema provides no description for the single parameter 'exceptionId.' The tool description also does not explain the parameter, leaving ambiguity about its format or meaning beyond what the schema defines (integer, >0). This is inadequate.

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?

The description clearly states 'Exception details by ID,' specifying the action (get) and the resource (exception) and the method (by ID). It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like 'list_exceptions' (which lists) and 'create_exception' (which creates).

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says 'by ID,' leaving the agent to infer that it is appropriate when an exception ID is known, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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

Deploy Server