list_level1_practicesList all 17 CMMC Level 1 basic safeguarding practices with their FAR 52.204-21 clause citations - the complete requirement set for contractors handling Federal Contract Information (FCI) only. Call this when the user asks what CMMC Level 1 requires.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is handled. The description adds valuable context beyond that: it specifies the list includes FAR 52.204-21 citations, is the complete requirement set, and is scoped to FCI-only contractors. No contradictions found.
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 sentences: the first states the action and content, the second gives the usage trigger. It is front-loaded, direct, and contains zero waste. 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?
This is a simple zero-parameter list tool with no output schema. The description fully captures what the tool returns, the scope, and when to invoke it. It is complete for its complexity level.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add confusion. Since there is nothing to document, a 4 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the verb ('list'), the exact resource ('all 17 CMMC Level 1 basic safeguarding practices'), and adds the FAR clause citation detail. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly framing this as the 'complete requirement set' for Level 1, making it unambiguous.
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 provides a clear trigger: 'Call this when the user asks what CMMC Level 1 requires.' This gives explicit when-to-use context. It doesn't explicitly mention excluding alternatives, but the sibling names and the specificity of this tool make the scenario clear enough.
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 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.
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.
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.
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.