Skip to main content
Glama

MacTech STIG

by com.mactechsolutionsllc.www

Search DISA STIG rules

search_stig
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search DISA STIG hardening rules across RHEL 8, RHEL 9, Windows 11, Windows Server 2022, and Cisco IOS Router NDM benchmarks - by keyword (matched against rule IDs and titles first, then descriptions), filterable by product, severity (high/medium/low, mapping to CAT I/II/III), category, and automation level. Call this when the user asks how to harden one of these platforms, what a STIG requires, or which rules cover a topic like SSH, passwords, or auditing. Returns summaries; use get_stig_rule for full check and fix text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results per page (default 20)
queryYesKeyword or rule id fragment, e.g. "ssh banner" or "SV-257777"
formatNo"summary" (default) returns each rule inline as JSON. "links" returns MCP resource links, which hosts can render as pickable items the user opens on demand. Not smaller - the title and severity you need in order to choose are the bulk of either shape - so choose on how the client presents results, not to save tokens.
offsetNoSkip this many matches. Pass the next_offset from a previous response to reach results beyond the first page.
productNoLimit to one benchmark
severityNohigh=CAT I, medium=CAT II, low=CAT III
automationNo

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/destructive safety, so the description need not restate those. It does add useful search behavior (match order, summary-only returns), but it also claims the tool is 'filterable by ... category' even though no category parameter exists in the schema, which undermines transparency.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is compact and front-loaded, with the main action in the first sentence. It packs platform list, filters, use cases, and an alternative into two sentences without obvious filler, though the platform enumeration makes it a bit dense.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 7-parameter search tool with no output schema, it covers use cases and the summary-vs-full distinction well. However, it does not describe what fields a 'summary' contains, and the category mention adds confusion rather than completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is high (86%), so baseline is 3, but the description adds little beyond the schema's existing parameter descriptions and introduces a misleading 'category' filter that is not a supported parameter. The only added nuance is keyword matching order, which is minor.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Search DISA STIG hardening rules across [five named benchmarks]', clearly stating the tool's scope. It also distinguishes itself from the get_stig_rule sibling by noting it 'Returns summaries; use get_stig_rule for full check and fix text.'

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this when the user asks how to harden one of these platforms, what a STIG requires, or which rules cover a topic...'. It also names the alternative get_stig_rule for full details, satisfying the when/when-not/alternatives test.

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

All MacTech STIG 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

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.

Naming Consistency5/5

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.

Tool Count5/5

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.

Completeness5/5

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.

Resources