stepsecurity-mcp

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_tenant_github_orgs

Lists every GitHub organization installed under your StepSecurity tenant, providing clickable dashboard URLs for security summaries. Start tenant-wide investigations here, then use per-org tools for deeper analysis.

Instructions

List every GitHub organization installed under a StepSecurity tenant. Call this first when a user asks for a tenant-wide view (e.g. 'find repos across my tenant using bun.sh') — then fan out find_repos_using_endpoint or similar per-org tools across the result. Each org has a dashboard_url pointing to its security summary — surface it as a clickable link per org. customer is optional; falls back to STEP_SECURITY_CUSTOMER.

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_tenant_github_orgs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`customer`	No	StepSecurity customer/tenant identifier. Optional — falls back to STEP_SECURITY_CUSTOMER env var.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Apr 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It implies read-only behavior by listing data, and explains parameter fallback. Could mention rate limits or data freshness, but overall clear about non-destructive nature.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Four sentences, each serving a purpose: purpose, usage guidance, result feature (dashboard_url), and parameter explanation. No fluff.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage sequence, and result handling. No gaps.

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% and the description repeats the same information about the 'customer' parameter being optional with fallback to env var. No additional meaning beyond the schema.

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 every GitHub organization installed under a StepSecurity tenant,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools that focus on processes, detections, or endpoints.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells when to use the tool ('Call this first when a user asks for a tenant-wide view') and directs to subsequent tools like 'find_repos_using_endpoint' for per-org operations. Provides actionable advice about the dashboard_url.

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