armorcode-mcp

Reopen Finding

armorcode_reopen_finding

Reopen a previously closed security finding by providing its ID, with optional reason and notes. Use dry run mode to preview changes before execution.

Instructions

Reopen 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_reopen_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

C2.4/5.0

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 full behavioral burden. It only notes that 'dryRun defaults true', revealing one default parameter behavior but omitting other important traits (e.g., whether the action is irreversible, permission requirements, side effects).

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 extremely concise at two short sentences. While it wastes no words, it front-loads little useful information beyond the tool name. The structure could be improved by ordering key behavioral notes first.

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?

Given 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what reopening a finding entails, return values, or side effects, making it inadequate for an agent to use confidently.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, meaning no parameter descriptions exist. The description only adds default value info for 'dryRun', not explaining the required 'findingId' or optional 'notes' and 'reason'. This leaves the agent uninformed about expected inputs.

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?

The description states 'Reopen Finding', which clearly identifies the action and resource. However, it is very terse and does not specify the context or differentiate it from similar sibling tools like armorcode_block_finding or armorcode_suppress_finding.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server