Skip to main content
Glama

website-search

by com.zeltser

aidefense_locate_concept

Read-onlyIdempotent

Reverse-lookup a single concept ID (MITRE ATLAS technique like 'AML.T0051', OWASP LLM Top 10 risk like 'LLM01', OWASP Agentic Top 10 issue like 'ASI03', or ISO 42001 Annex A clause like 'A.6') across the AI Defense Matrix. Returns which framework the concept belongs to, the asset rows whose alignment cites it, the cells whose evaluation cellPrompts cite it, and those prompts themselves. Useful when a vendor's product is defined by a specific technique ('we defend AML.T0051') and they need to find which matrix cells to claim. Recognizes only concepts with structured IDs; for prose-only frameworks (NIST IR 8596, CSA AICM, Google SAIF, OWASP AI Exchange) use aidefense_get_framework_alignment instead. 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
conceptYesA single concept ID. Recognized patterns: 'AML.T<4 digits>(.<3 digits>)?' (MITRE ATLAS), 'LLM<2 digits>' (OWASP LLM Top 10), 'ASI<2 digits>' (OWASP Agentic Top 10), 'A.<digits>' (ISO 42001 Annex A clauses). Case-insensitive.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it returns the framework, asset rows, cells, and prompts, and explains the privacy model ('never requests your program docs... keeps them local'). This gives the agent clear insight into what happens during invocation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Though moderately long, every sentence serves a purpose: main action, return values, use case, limitation + alternative, privacy note. The description is front-loaded with the purpose, and structure is logical and scannable.

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

Completeness5/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description fully covers return values (framework, asset rows, cells, prompts). It also explains which inputs are supported, when to use an alternative, and the privacy behavior, making it complete for this simple 1-parameter lookup tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the concept parameter already documented with patterns and length constraints. The description adds examples and case-insensitivity, but these largely mirror the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Reverse-lookup a single concept ID... across the AI Defense Matrix.' It clearly lists example IDs and return elements, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool aidefense_get_framework_alignment for prose-only frameworks. This provides a fully clear and unique purpose.

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?

The description gives explicit use case ('Useful when a vendor's product is defined by a specific technique...') and states a direct alternative: 'for prose-only frameworks... use aidefense_get_framework_alignment instead.' It also sets a boundary on what inputs it accepts, preventing misuse with unsupported framework IDs.

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

All website-search 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

A4/5.0
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