list_stig_benchmarksList the DISA STIG benchmarks this server covers, with versions, rule counts, and severity breakdowns. Call this first when unsure whether a platform is covered.
| 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, and the description aligns by saying 'list'. It adds value by specifying the return contents (versions, rule counts, severity breakdowns), which goes beyond the annotations. No contradiction.
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 a single sentence that conveys purpose, output content, and usage guidance without wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action.
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 simple list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it lists, what each entry includes, and when to call it. Could be slightly more detailed on return structure but is adequate.
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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. With no parameters to explain, the description doesn't need to provide parameter semantics; baseline for 0 params is 4.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'DISA STIG benchmarks' with scope 'this server covers', and adds detail about versions, rule counts, and severity breakdowns. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like get_stig_rule or search_stig.
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?
Explicitly instructs to 'Call this first when unsure whether a platform is covered', giving a clear when-to-use scenario. It doesn't mention when not to use or alternatives, so not a 5.
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 operation: listing benchmarks, searching rules, retrieving rule detail, and exporting a checklist. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them, even for an agent unfamiliar with the domain.
All tool names follow the verb_noun pattern in snake_case: list_stig_benchmarks, search_stig, get_stig_rule, and export_stig_checklist. The naming is uniform and predictable.
With four tools, the server is tightly scoped to the STIG workflow: discover benchmarks, search rules, inspect details, and generate the .ckl artifact. This is an appropriate size for a focused reference/export tool.
The tool set covers the full read-and-export lifecycle for STIG benchmarks: listing available benchmarks, searching and retrieving rule details, and producing the standard checklist output. There are no obvious gaps or dead ends for the stated purpose.