website-search

get_security_writing_guidelines

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Lenny Zeltser's expert writing guidelines for security reports and assessments. Provides guidance on tone, structure, clarity, executive summaries, and avoiding common writing mistakes. Includes rating-sheet items (the four lens sheets: structure, look, words, tone) as concrete reference points for grounded feedback. Works for any security document. This server never requests your documents and instructs your AI to keep them local—guidelines flow to your AI for local analysis. Note: For incident response reports specifically, use the ir_* tools which provide deeper section-by-section review criteria.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`focus`	No	Which aspects of writing to focus on. 'tone': voice, do/avoid examples. 'structure': paragraphs, report qualities, formatting. 'clarity': sentences, jargon alternatives. 'executive_summary': exec summary best practices. 'critique': writing as critique not criticism. 'analytical': evidence attribution, confidence language, comparative language, gap acknowledgment. 'all' or omit for everything.
`include_examples`	No	Include before/after examples. Default: true. Set to false for smaller response.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'This server never requests your documents and instructs your AI to keep them local—guidelines flow to your AI for local analysis.' This privacy-related behavior is not captured by annotations and is critical for user trust.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose and includes only sentences that add unique information: scope, rating-sheet specifics, privacy guarantee, and an alternative-tool note. No filler or redundancy. Despite length, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity, the description covers output expectations (guidelines and rating-sheet items), domain applicability, privacy behavior, and alternative tools. The input schema and annotations handle parameter and safety details, so nothing important is left unexplained.

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%, so the schema already documents the focus enum and include_examples default. The description adds some mapping by listing aspects like tone, structure, clarity, and executive summaries, but it does not significantly enrich understanding of the two parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get Lenny Zeltser's expert writing guidelines for security reports and assessments.' It clearly enumerates the covered aspects (tone, structure, clarity, executive summaries, mistakes) and distinguishes itself from incident-response guideline tools by stating 'Works for any security document' and referencing the ir_* tools.

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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'Works for any security document' and gives an alternative for a specific case: 'For incident response reports specifically, use the ir_* tools which provide deeper section-by-section review criteria.' Also gives a practical tip for adjusting output size via the include_examples parameter.

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?