Search NIST's Modules in Process queue: submissions awaiting FIPS 140-3 validation, with the review phase each one is sitting in. Use this when a vendor claims a validation is 'coming' and you need to know whether it has actually been submitted, and how far along it is.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| phase | No | e.g. Review, Finalization, Coordination | |
| query | No | Substring of the module name or vendor |
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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read-only search operation and discloses that results include the review phase. However, it doesn't mention response shape, pagination behavior, or any data freshness limitations. The coverage is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The first sentence front-loads the resource and what is returned; the second supplies a concrete real-world use case. Every word earns its place.
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?
Given three optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough context for a straightforward search tool: what it searches, what it reveals, and when to use it. It doesn't explicitly describe return values or defaults, but the core usage scenario is well covered.
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 coverage is 67%: phase and query already have descriptions. The description adds contextual meaning by tying 'phase' to the review phase each submission is in, but it doesn't clarify the 'limit' parameter's behavior or add any new parameter semantics beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Search'), a specific resource ('NIST's Modules in Process queue'), and a distinguishing scope ('submissions awaiting FIPS 140-3 validation'). This clearly separates it from the sibling search tools and explains the core value: showing the review phase each submission sits in.
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?
Gives a concrete trigger condition: use when a vendor claims validation is 'coming' and you need to verify submission status and progress. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.
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.