GuardianShield

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_false_positives

Retrieve active false positive records from security scans to review or manage misidentified findings. Optionally filter by scanner for targeted analysis.

Instructions

List active false positive records. Shows findings that have been marked as false positives, with optional filtering by scanner.

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": "list_false_positives"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No	Maximum number of records to return (default 100).
`scanner`	No	Optional filter by scanner name (e.g. 'code_scanner', 'secrets').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Aug 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only states 'list' and 'optional filtering', but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, pagination behavior, or whether the operation is read-only (though implied). This is insufficient for a tool lacking any annotation safety signals.

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?

The description is two sentences and brief, but the second sentence ('Shows findings that have been marked as false positives') is slightly redundant with the first. Still, it is front-loaded and concise overall.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 optional parameters, no output schema), the description covers the core purpose. However, it lacks details about return format, pagination handling (though limit hints at it), and context like scope of records (e.g., per project or global). For a tool without output schema, more completeness would be beneficial.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for both parameters (limit, scanner). The description repeats 'optional filtering by scanner' but adds no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description states 'List active false positive records', which is a specific verb+resource pair. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like mark_false_positive (create) and get_findings (all findings) by focusing solely on false positive records.

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?

The description implies usage for viewing false positive records but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives are mentioned, though sibling names offer implicit contrast.

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