Skip to main content
Glama

MacTech CMMC / NIST 800-171

by com.mactechsolutionsllc.www

List NIST 800-171 controls

list_controls
Read-onlyIdempotent

List NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 requirements with their DoD Assessment Methodology (SPRS) weights, optionally filtered by control family name or by point weight (5, 3, or 1). Call this to enumerate the 110 CMMC Level 2 controls, to find all 5-point (highest-impact) requirements, or to see everything in one family such as Access Control. Returns identifiers and weights only - use lookup_control for one requirement's full text, or pass verbose to include every requirement's text at roughly twenty times the size.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
familyNoFilter by control family
weightNoFilter by DoD assessment point weight
verboseNoInclude the full requirement text for every result. Off by default: an unfiltered verbose listing is ~25× larger and is rarely what the question needs.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly and idempotent, so the description appropriately focuses on additional behavioral detail: it returns identifiers/weights only by default, and verbose includes full text at roughly 25× the size. This warns the agent about payload size and default output shape, which is valuable context beyond annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then usage scenarios, an alternative, and a performance caveat. Every sentence adds essential information with no fluff or redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main use cases, return value scope, alternative tools, and a size warning for verbose mode. It provides enough context for an agent to decide when to call this tool and what to expect in response.

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?

The input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions and enums/consts, so baseline is 3. The description adds only marginal semantic context (e.g., point weight values 5/3/1 and a family example), but doesn't explain parameters beyond what the schema already conveys, so it doesn't warrant a higher score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists NIST SP 800-171 Rev 2 requirements with SPRS weights and supports filtering by family or weight. It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting lookup_control is for full text of a single requirement and that this tool returns identifiers/weights only.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: enumerate all 110 CMMC Level 2 controls, find high-impact 5-point requirements, or view a whole family like Access Control. It also names the alternative lookup_control for single-requirement full text and clarifies when to use verbose, giving clear context for tool selection.

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

All MacTech CMMC / NIST 800-171 toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect of CMMC/NIST 800-171: scoring, crosswalking, level determination, POA&M generation, assessment objectives, control listing, Level 1 practices, and individual control lookup. There is no meaningful overlap—even list_controls and lookup_control serve different granularities, and calculate_sprs_score uses lookup-style data but performs a distinct computation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case: calculate_, crosswalk_, determine_, generate_, get_, list_, list_, lookup_. Verbs clearly indicate the action and nouns indicate the resource, making the API predictable and self-documenting.

Tool Count5/5

With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose. Each tool covers a necessary function without redundancy, and the count is comfortably within the 3-15 range that supports a focused domain without overwhelming users.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of CMMC/NIST 800-171 compliance: level determination, control enumeration and details, assessment objectives, SPRS scoring, POA&M generation, cross-referencing, and Level 1 practices. There are no obvious dead ends—any typical compliance question can be answered or acted upon using these tools.

Resources