signaltender-mcp

Generate GovCon RMF, Continuous ATO (cATO), SSP & POA&M Package

generate_ato_rmf_package

Read-onlyIdempotent

Transform RFP cybersecurity clauses, system architecture descriptions, and cloud hosting baselines into a NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 / DoDI 8510.01 RMF / FedRAMP / StateRAMP Authority to Operate (ATO & Continuous ATO) package with FIPS 199 / CNSSI 1253 security categorization, System Security Plan (SSP) control inheritance matrices, eMASS/CSAM-ready Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M) schedules, Continuous Monitoring (ConMon) DevSecOps blueprints, and Shipley proposal narratives. This is a read-only, stateless generative authorization modeling call (requires X-RapidAPI-Key; system_architecture_and_rfp_cyber_text accepts 40 to 100,000 characters, cloud_hosting_and_inherited_controls_context accepts 20 to 80,000 characters, and target_authorization_framework and target_impact_level calibrate control baselines across DoD RMF IL2-IL6, FedRAMP, StateRAMP, and CMMC 2.0). Use this tool when building System Security Plans (SSPs), eMASS POA&M items, FIPS 199 categorizations, or cATO roadmaps for an ATO boundary; use answer_security_questionnaire instead to answer vendor security questionnaires and calculate a numeric DoD SPRS score (-203 to 110), or scan_far_dfars_clauses to audit FAR/DFARS solicitation clauses.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target_ato_timeline_days`	No	Target calendar days from contract award to achieve full ATO / cATO authorization.
`target_authorization_framework`	No	Target government cybersecurity authorization framework.	dod_rmf_il4_il5_cato
`rfp_security_and_ato_requirements`	Yes	Raw text from RFP Section C/H/L/M detailing ATO, RMF (eMASS/Xacta), FedRAMP, StateRAMP, DISA Impact Level (IL4/IL5), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, or CMMC Level 2 authorization requirements.
`system_architecture_and_boundary_context`	Yes	Description of the bidder's cloud environment, hosting boundary, identity provider, encryption posture, DevSecOps toolchain, and any existing compliance gaps.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ato_readiness_score`	No	Overall ATO / cATO readiness score from 0 to 100 based on boundary maturity, control coverage, and open findings.
`poam_remediation_schedule`	No	Structured Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M) remediation table for any open findings or architecture gaps.
`rmf_six_step_milestone_plan`	No	Day-by-day RMF Step 1 through Step 6 schedule to achieve IATT and full ATO within target_ato_timeline_days.
`ssp_control_implementations`	No	Audit-ready NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 / NIST 800-171 System Security Plan (SSP) control implementation narratives.
`authorization_boundary_summary`	No	FIPS 199 categorization, Impact Level baseline, GRC system of record, CSP control inheritance percentage, and boundary summary.
`cato_devsecops_pipeline_blueprint`	No	Continuous ATO (cATO) DevSecOps CI/CD security gates, ConMon cadence, and OSCAL/SBOM automation blueprint.
`proposal_technical_volume_ato_narrative`	No	Executive-ready Shipley Technical Volume narrative explaining how the Offeror will achieve rapid, low-risk ATO / cATO without delaying mission deployment.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed23 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / cloud_hosting_and_inherited_controls_context

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Cloud Service Provider (CSP) enclave (AWS GovCloud, Azure Government, GCP Assured Workloads, on-prem), platform layer (Kubernetes, Platform One BigBang, Serverless), and existing security tooling (SIEM, SOAR, ICAM, SAST/DAST).",
-  "maxLength": 80000,
-  "minLength": 20,
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / rfp_security_and_ato_requirements

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Raw text from RFP Section C/H/L/M detailing ATO, RMF (eMASS/Xacta), FedRAMP, StateRAMP, DISA Impact Level (IL4/IL5), NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5, or CMMC Level 2 authorization requirements.",
+  "maxLength": 100000,
+  "minLength": 20,
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / system_architecture_and_boundary_context

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Description of the bidder's cloud environment, hosting boundary, identity provider, encryption posture, DevSecOps toolchain, and any existing compliance gaps.",
+  "maxLength": 80000,
+  "minLength": 20,
+  "type": "string"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / system_architecture_and_rfp_cyber_text

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Raw RFP Section C/L/M cybersecurity & ATO requirements, target system architecture, data types processed (CUI, CDI, ITAR, PHI, PII, CJIS), user communities, and interconnection boundaries (40 to 100,000 characters).",
-  "maxLength": 100000,
-  "minLength": 40,
-  "type": "string"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / target_ato_timeline_days

Added value: +{
+  "default": 90,
+  "description": "Target calendar days from contract award to achieve full ATO / cATO authorization.",
+  "maximum": 365,
+  "minimum": 14,
+  "type": "integer"
+}

changedInput schema / properties / target_authorization_framework / default

Previous value: -"dod_rmf_dodi_8510_01_cato"New value: +"dod_rmf_il4_il5_cato"

changedInput schema / properties / target_authorization_framework / description

Previous value: -"Target authorization framework: 'dod_rmf_dodi_8510_01_cato' (default DoD RMF & Continuous ATO), 'fedramp_rev5_agency_ato' (Civilian Federal Agency ATO / FedRAMP Rev 5), 'stateramp_txramp_govramp' (State SLED StateRAMP / TX-RAMP / GovRAMP), or 'nist_800_171_cmmc_level_2' (CMMC 2.0 Level 2)."New value: +"Target government cybersecurity authorization framework."

changedInput schema / properties / target_authorization_framework / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "dod_rmf_dodi_8510_01_cato",
-  "fedramp_rev5_agency_ato",
-  "stateramp_txramp_govramp",
-  "nist_800_171_cmmc_level_2"
-]New value: +[
+  "dod_rmf_il4_il5_cato",
+  "fedramp_high_or_moderate",
+  "stateramp_or_state_cloud_sec",
+  "cmmc_level_2_nist_800_171"
+]

removedInput schema / properties / target_impact_level

Removed value: -{
-  "default": "IL5_CUI_NSS",
-  "description": "Target DoD Cloud Computing SRG Impact Level or FIPS 199 baseline: 'IL2_LOW', 'IL4_MODERATE_CUI', 'IL5_CUI_NSS' (default), 'IL6_CLASSIFIED_HIGH', 'FEDRAMP_MODERATE', or 'FEDRAMP_HIGH'.",
-  "enum": [
-    "IL2_LOW",
-    "IL4_MODERATE_CUI",
-    "IL5_CUI_NSS",
-    "IL6_CLASSIFIED_HIGH",
-    "FEDRAMP_MODERATE",
-    "FEDRAMP_HIGH"
-  ],
-  "type": "string"
-}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "system_architecture_and_rfp_cyber_text",
-  "cloud_hosting_and_inherited_controls_context"
-]New value: +[
+  "rfp_security_and_ato_requirements",
+  "system_architecture_and_boundary_context"
+]

addedOutput schema / properties / ato_readiness_score

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Overall ATO / cATO readiness score from 0 to 100 based on boundary maturity, control coverage, and open findings.",
+  "type": "integer"
+}

changedOutput schema / properties / authorization_boundary_summary / description

Previous value: -"Executive summary of the system authorization boundary, hosting enclave, and target ATO pathway."New value: +"FIPS 199 categorization, Impact Level baseline, GRC system of record, CSP control inheritance percentage, and boundary summary."

changedOutput schema / properties / authorization_boundary_summary / type
```
Previous value: -"string"New value: +"object"
```

addedOutput schema / properties / cato_devsecops_pipeline_blueprint

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Continuous ATO (cATO) DevSecOps CI/CD security gates, ConMon cadence, and OSCAL/SBOM automation blueprint.",
+  "type": "object"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / continuous_ato_conmon_blueprint

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Continuous ATO (cATO) DevSecOps pipeline gates, OSCAL automation, and ConMon cadence.",
-  "type": "object"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / control_inheritance_summary

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Estimated breakdown of Inherited CSP Controls vs. Hybrid Shared Controls vs. Customer-Implemented Controls.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / emass_poam_remediation_schedule

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "eMASS / CSAM-ready POA&M entries with CAT I/II/III severity, compensating controls, and milestones.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / fips_199_security_categorization

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "FIPS 199 & CNSSI 1253 Confidentiality/Integrity/Availability categorization and overall high-water mark.",
-  "type": "object"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / poam_remediation_schedule

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Structured Plan of Action & Milestones (POA&M) remediation table for any open findings or architecture gaps.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / proposal_technical_volume_ato_narrative

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Executive-ready Shipley Technical Volume narrative explaining how the Offeror will achieve rapid, low-risk ATO / cATO without delaying mission deployment.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / rmf_six_step_milestone_plan

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Day-by-day RMF Step 1 through Step 6 schedule to achieve IATT and full ATO within target_ato_timeline_days.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

removedOutput schema / properties / ssp_control_implementation_matrix

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 SSP control family implementation narratives, STIG mappings, and audit artifacts.",
-  "items": {
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}

addedOutput schema / properties / ssp_control_implementations

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Audit-ready NIST SP 800-53 Rev 5 / NIST 800-171 System Security Plan (SSP) control implementation narratives.",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

AddedOct 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so safety behavior is largely covered. The description adds useful context that this is a stateless generative call requiring X-RapidAPI-Key, plus input size constraints, though it does not add much beyond the safety profile already present.

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 purpose and usage guidance are front-loaded, and the dense list of deliverables is relevant for such a complex tool. It is still quite long and acronym-heavy, with some repetition across framework and deliverable names.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a complex generative ATO tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, alternatives, stateless behavior, and authentication. The main gap is the incorrect parameter-name references, which slightly reduce 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 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description references parameter names that do not match the schema, including `system_architecture_and_rfp_cyber_text`, `cloud_hosting_and_inherited_controls_context`, and `target_impact_level`. That mismatch risks misleading the agent about which parameters to supply, despite the added length and framework-calibration context.

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 states a specific transformation from RFP/security architecture inputs into an ATO/cATO package, naming concrete deliverables such as SSP control inheritance matrices, POA&M schedules, FIPS 199 categorization, and ConMon blueprints. It also distinguishes the tool from nearby siblings by naming `answer_security_questionnaire` and `scan_far_dfars_clauses`.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool—building SSPs, eMASS POA&M items, FIPS 199 categorizations, or cATO roadmaps—and when to use alternatives instead. The sibling routing is concrete and actionable.

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

All signaltender-mcp tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?