blast-radius

assess_against_frontier_line

Stress-test a company, product, or thesis against the Blast Radius 'Frontier Line' framework, an adversarial business-model survivability assessment under AI capability acceleration. Returns a structured scaffold (decisive verdict, doom clock, scored dimensions, disposable-software risk, risk split, bear case, incumbent attack map, durability evidence, strongest move, and a brutal closing question) for you to apply to the subject. Note: the subject text may be logged to improve the brief.

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": {
      "subject": "<subject>"
    },
    "name": "assess_against_frontier_line"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`subject`	Yes	The company, product, or thesis to assess.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedJun 30, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses a concrete behavioral detail—subject text may be logged—and clarifies that the output is a scaffold for the agent to apply, not an automatic action. For a single-input analysis tool, this is meaningful but not exhaustive.

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 front-loaded with the core action, then lists the return scaffold components, then adds the logging note. It is moderately long because of the enumerated output, but every sentence adds useful context with no redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description enumerates the returned components, so an agent knows what to expect. It is complete enough for a one-parameter assessment tool, though framework jargon like 'doom clock' and 'risk split' is not expanded.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the only parameter 'subject'. The description repeats the same phrasing without adding format hints, examples, or edge-case guidance, so it remains at baseline.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Stress-test') and names the resource ('company, product, or thesis') and the framework, so an agent can tell what the tool acts on. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like ask_blast_radius, so the differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 intended use is implied: use this when you want an adversarial business-model survivability assessment under AI acceleration. There are no explicit when-to-use conditions, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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

All blast-radius tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?