armorcode-mcp

Findings Stats

armorcode_get_findings_stats

Retrieve counts of security findings grouped by severity and status, filterable by product, subproduct, or source tool.

Instructions

Finding counts by severity/status.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "armorcode_get_findings_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	No
`severity`	No
`sourceTool`	No
`productName`	No
`subproductName`	No

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 are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions counts but does not state that the tool is read-only, what the output format is, or whether any filters are applied. This is insufficient.

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, consisting of a single fragment. It is concise but lacks structure and essential details, making it under-specified.

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 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to understand inputs, outputs, or behavior. It is incomplete in nearly all aspects.

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?

The schema has 5 parameters with no descriptions and no enums. The description does not explain what any of these parameters (status, severity, sourceTool, etc.) do or how they affect the results. With 0% schema coverage, the description adds zero value.

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

Purpose3/5

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

Description states 'Finding counts by severity/status' indicating an aggregation of findings. However, it lacks a clear verb and does not explicitly confirm that it returns aggregated statistics per severity and status. It is somewhat clear but could be more specific.

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 alternatives like get_severity_stats or search_findings. The description does not provide any usage context or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server