rapid7-mcp

update_investigation

Modify an existing investigation's status, priority, assignee, or disposition to align with ongoing analysis and response efforts.

Instructions

Update an existing investigation's status, priority, assignee, or disposition

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": {
      "investigation_id": "<investigation_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_investigation"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	New investigation title
`status`	No	New investigation status
`priority`	No	New investigation priority
`disposition`	No	Investigation disposition
`assignee_email`	No	Email of the new assignee
`investigation_id`	Yes	Investigation ID or RRN

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility. It says 'Update' indicating mutation but lacks details on permissions, partial updates, side effects, or return value (no output schema). Minimal behavioral disclosure.

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?

Single sentence, 10 words, efficient and front-loaded with action and resource. However, it omits the 'title' field, which is a minor omission. Overall well-structured for quick scanning.

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?

With 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain partial update behavior, required parameters (investigation_id is required but not highlighted), or response format, leaving gaps for an agent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no extra meaning beyond listing fields; it does not explain parameter constraints, relationships, or formatting beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

Description clearly states it updates an investigation and lists four specific updatable fields (status, priority, assignee, disposition). However, it omits the 'title' field from the schema, making it slightly incomplete.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_investigation or search_investigations. The phrase 'Update an existing investigation' implies context, but no when-not or sibling comparisons are provided.

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