Get Lenny Zeltser's Security Assessment one-page executive brief template. Standalone variant of assessment_get_template for callers that only want the brief without the long-form report. This server never requests your assessment notes or report and instructs your AI to keep them local—the templates and guidelines flow to your AI for local analysis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantive behavioral context about data handling: the server never requests assessment notes or report and instructs the AI to keep them local. This goes beyond annotations and is particularly relevant for privacy, with no contradictions.
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?
Three concise sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: what the tool does, how it differs from the alternative, and its privacy behavior. The primary action verb is front-loaded and there is no redundant or filler text.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only, strong annotations) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage alternative, and data handling. There are no significant gaps for a caller to safely invoke the tool.
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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. The description doesn't need to explain parameter details; the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is 4, and there's no missing parameter information to compensate for.
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 clearly states its function: retrieving Lenny Zeltser's Security Assessment one-page executive brief template. It also differentiates from the sibling assessment_get_template by specifying it's the standalone brief-only variant, which prevents confusion.
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?
It explicitly names the alternative tool (assessment_get_template) and defines when to use this one: for callers that only want the brief without the long-form report. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.
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.
