Look up one FIPS 140 cryptographic module validation by certificate number. Returns status (active, historical or revoked), overall level, sunset date, validation history, approved algorithms and tested configurations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| number | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return fields (status, level, sunset date, history, algorithms, configurations), which is useful, but it doesn't mention any behavioral traits like error cases for invalid certificate numbers, whether the record can be historical/revoked (it does say status can be that), or response size. The disclosure of the status types is a modest positive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One dense sentence that front-loads the core action ('Look up one FIPS 140 cryptographic module validation by certificate number') and then lists the returned attributes. Every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter lookup tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it names the allowed status values and the full expected return payload. The only gap is guidance on error handling or what happens when the number is not found, but given the tool's simplicity this is a minor omission.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the single parameter semantically: the certificate number is the lookup key, and the returned data is tied to that exact module validation. However, it doesn't specify the exact format of the number (e.g., must be an integer like the schema requires) beyond implicit context. With one parameter and clear semantics, the description does enough.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Look up') and a precise resource ('one FIPS 140 cryptographic module validation by certificate number'). It enumerates exactly what the tool returns, which fully distinguishes it from siblings like fips_search (search) and fips_in_process (in-process list).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description names the sibling fips_search implicitly by saying 'by certificate number', which tells the agent this is the one-record lookup variant. It doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context signals plus sibling names make the usage clear without being stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: certificate number lookup, search by name/vendor, vendor portfolio, sunset dates, in-process submissions, and CVE associations. The only mild overlap is between fips_search and fips_vendor when querying by vendor, but the descriptions clarify that one checks current validation while the other returns the full grouped portfolio.
All tool names follow a consistent fips_<topic> pattern in lowercase snake_case. Even though most are noun-like rather than verb_noun, the prefix and naming style are uniform and predictable across the set.
Six tools is well-scoped for a FIPS 140 certificate tracker: each covers a distinct query type without redundancy. The count feels intentional and neither too thin nor bloated.
The tool set covers the main certificate lifecycle: in-process submissions, active certificates, sunset status, historical/revoked details via certificate lookup, vendor-level viewing, and CVE association. It also includes cross-referencing hints such as checking for 140-3 successors before reporting a gap, so the surface appears complete for the domain.