Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
armorcode-mcp

armorcode-mcp

by raviraj-ntp
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Finding Events

armorcode_get_finding_events

Retrieve audit events for a security finding. Track changes and user actions related to the finding.

Instructions

Audit events for a finding.

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_get_finding_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
findingIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It only says 'Audit events for a finding' without disclosing whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or any other behavioral traits.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is too minimal given the lack of other documentation. It is adequately concise but could benefit from more detail without becoming verbose.

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?

The description fails to specify what the output contains (e.g., event details, timestamps, types). With no output schema, the agent lacks sufficient context to understand the tool's full behavior.

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% and the description does not mention the required parameter 'findingId'. The parameter name suggests it is the ID of a finding, but the description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 'Audit events for a finding' clearly states that the tool retrieves audit events for a specific finding. It is distinct from siblings like get_finding which retrieves the finding itself. However, it could be more explicit about the verb and scope.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_finding, get_scan). It does not specify when-not or mention any preconditions or alternatives.

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