website-search

aidefense_get_framework_alignment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get AI Defense Matrix cross-mappings to nine external frameworks: NIST IR 8596, CSA AI Controls Matrix, ISO 42001, Google SAIF, SANS Critical AI Security Guidelines, MITRE ATLAS, OWASP AI Exchange, OWASP LLM Top 10, OWASP Agentic Security Top 10. Each row maps an AI asset class to how that framework applies. Each returned framework also carries a 'concepts' array of the structured IDs (MITRE ATLAS techniques, OWASP risks, ISO clauses) the matrix references for it. Supports a 'buyer' archetype shortcut to scope to the frameworks a particular buyer will care about. Use to translate between framework vocabularies. This server never requests your program docs or product roadmap and instructs your AI to keep them local—the matrix, framework alignments, and playbooks flow to your AI for local analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`buyer`	No	Optional: scope to a buyer archetype's framework subset. federal: NIST IR 8596 + ISO 42001. ai-governance: ISO 42001 + CSA AICM. app-security: OWASP LLM Top 10 + OWASP AI Exchange. threat-modeler: MITRE ATLAS + OWASP Agentic Top 10. enterprise: all 9 (same as omitting both parameters).
`framework`	No	Optional: scope to one framework slug (e.g., 'mitre-atlas', 'owasp-llm-top10'). Omit to get all nine. Wins over 'buyer' if both are passed.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: it explains the output structure (rows and 'concepts' array) and discloses a privacy-relevant behavior ('never requests your program docs... keeps them local'). This is meaningful extra transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 five sentences, but each is informative: main purpose, output structure, concepts array, buyer shortcut, and privacy note. It is slightly long but earns its length given the tool's complexity, and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: nine framework names, row semantics, concepts array, buyer scoping, and usage context. It omits any mention of pagination or response envelope, but those are likely minimal and the safety profile is well-covered by annotations.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: both 'buyer' and 'framework' are fully documented with enums and descriptions. The tool description only repeats the buyer shortcut and precedence rule, adding no new semantic value over the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Get AI Defense Matrix cross-mappings to nine external frameworks' and enumerates all nine. It clearly differentiates from siblings by focusing on cross-mappings rather than the matrix itself, making the purpose unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly says 'Use to translate between framework vocabularies,' providing a clear when-to-use context. It also mentions the buyer archetype shortcut for scoping, but does not contrast with alternative tools like aidefense_cross_map, so no explicit exclusion is given.

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

All website-search tools Inspect

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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Each tool has a distinct domain prefix (assessment, cti, ir, malware, vuln, product) that makes its purpose clear, and overlapping tools like get_template and get_brief_template are explicitly described as standalone variants. However, the large number of similarly structured tools (get_guidelines, load_context, get_frameworks) across six domains could still cause an agent to reach for the wrong domain's tool without close attention.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent snake_case pattern: domain_get_* (e.g., ir_get_template, cti_get_guidelines), domain_load_context, domain_review_report, and domain_get_cross_server_routes. The few exceptions like product_compare_context and search_zeltser still match the general verb-first or domain-first style, so the overall naming scheme is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

With 53 tools, the server is far too large for its stated purpose of 'website search.' The vast majority of tools are not about search but rather about writing guidelines, templates, and scoring rubrics for multiple report domains (assessment, CTI, IR, malware, vuln, product) plus an AI defense matrix. The count is inflated by repeating the same set of ~7 tools for six different domains, making it feel bloated and hard to navigate.

Completeness4/5

For the broad coaching/report-writing scope, coverage is thorough: every domain has a template, guidelines, context loader, review criteria, and frameworks, plus generic writing guidance and rating tools. The actual search capability is minimal (search_zeltser, get_article, get_index_info) but adequate for the core task; a notable gap is the lack of a tool to list or browse all articles, which would make discovery easier.

Resources

Need Help?