armorcode-mcp

Set Product Exploitability

armorcode_set_product_exploitability

Determine and set exploitability status for a security finding: adds a reason comment and applies a product_exploitability tag, with optional dry run mode.

Instructions

Triage exploitability: adds comment first, then product_exploitability tag. 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>",
      "exploitable": "<exploitable>",
      "reason": "<reason>"
    },
    "name": "armorcode_set_product_exploitability"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses that it adds a comment first then adds the tag, and notes that dryRun defaults true. However, no annotations are provided, and the description does not reveal side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. Gives basic behavior but lacks depth.

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?

Description is very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with key action. It is efficient, though it could benefit from slightly 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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits return values, error handling, prerequisites, and does not fully explain the behavior when dryRun is false.

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?

Only the dryRun parameter gets additional meaning ('defaults true'). The other three parameters (findingId, exploitable, reason) have no description, and schema coverage is 0%. Description fails to add value for most parameters.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states the tool's action: 'Triage exploitability: adds comment first, then product_exploitability tag.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and distinguishes from sibling tools like armorcode_bulk_set_product_exploitability and armorcode_add_exploitability_comment.

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. Does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or contrast with sibling tools such as armorcode_bulk_set_product_exploitability or armorcode_triage_finding.

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

Deploy Server