KernelScan

submit_support_report

Send a support / dispute report to KernelScan staff.

    Use this when an automated CVE or factor assessment looks wrong, or
    when you need to hand human-needed context back to the team. The
    caller's API-key user is attached automatically (id, email, plan)
    so support can look the account up.

    ``category`` should be one of:
    - ``cve_assessment`` — wrong AI verdict / CVSS / CWE on a CVE
    - ``factor_assessment`` — wrong factor verdict for a product
    - ``bug`` — broken behavior in the API or UI
    - ``other`` — anything else

    ``cve_id`` / ``product_id`` / ``assessment_id`` are optional but
    recommended — they let support jump straight to the relevant row.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`cve_id`	No
`message`	Yes
`subject`	Yes
`category`	Yes
`product_id`	No
`assessment_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedJun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that caller API key user (id, email, plan) is attached automatically, and lists categories and optional IDs. No side effects are mentioned, but for a submission tool this is sufficient.

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 fairly long but well-structured with bullet points and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence adds value, though slight trimming could improve conciseness.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, and a support tool context, the description covers categories, optional IDs, and user info attachment. It does not specify return value, but for a submission tool this is acceptable.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates by explaining the category enum values in detail and clarifying that cve_id, product_id, assessment_id are optional but recommended. Subject and message are self-explanatory.

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 clearly states the tool sends a support/dispute report to KernelScan staff, and distinguishes from sibling tools like product and CVE tools by focusing on human review of automated assessments.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly says to use when an automated assessment looks wrong or when human context is needed. It does not explicitly mention when not to use, but the purpose is clear enough to guide selection.

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

All KernelScan tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: product lifecycle (create/get/list/update), CVE lookup/search, VEX retrieval, access request, support submission, and identity/quota check. There is no overlap; even create_product and update_product are clearly differentiated by their operation semantics.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_product, get_cve, list_products, etc.) using lowercase with underscores. The only outlier is whoami, which is a standard Unix-style command and fits naturally.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well-scoped for the domain of Linux kernel security scanning and CVE/product management. Each tool serves a clear purpose without redundancy or bloat, covering the core workflows without overwhelming the agent.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the major lifecycle for products (create, get, list, update) and CVEs (search, get), plus VEX retrieval and account context. Minor gaps exist such as product deletion or direct config upload, but these can be worked around via existing tools and the REST API.

Resources

Need Help?