Map scan findings to compliance frameworks: NIST 800-177, PCI DSS 4.0, SOC 2, CIS Controls. Shows pass/fail/partial status per control.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain to check (e.g., example.com) | |
| format | No | Output verbosity. Auto-detected if omitted. | |
| force_refresh | No | Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput schema / properties / force_refreshAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Bypass cache and run a fresh check. Useful after DNS changes.",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by naming the compliance frameworks and explaining that results show pass/fail/partial status per control, though it does not address caching behavior or whether existing scan data is reused.
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?
The description is two tightly written sentences with zero filler. The core mapping purpose and output status are front-loaded effectively.
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 three-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough detail about frameworks and control statuses to use it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying whether it uses existing scan findings or triggers a fresh scan, though force_refresh partially covers that.
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 100%, so domain, format, and force_refresh are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 and resource: mapping scan findings to named compliance frameworks, and it specifies the output shape as pass/fail/partial per control. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling scan/check tools and from map_supply_chain.
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?
Usage is implied by 'scan findings' and the compliance-framework context, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of scan_domain, check_* tools, or other mapping tools. No prerequisites or exclusions are 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.