Skip to main content
Glama

website-search

by com.zeltser

ir_review_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Lenny Zeltser's expert criteria for reviewing an existing IR report. Returns focused guidance for constructive critique — what to check in each section, writing quality issues to identify, and how to frame feedback collaboratively. Includes rating-sheet items (lens taxonomy plus the IR-specific Information sheet) as concrete reference points for grounded feedback. This server never requests your report and instructs your AI to keep it local.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
focusNoWhat aspects to focus on. 'completeness': is everything covered? 'clarity': jargon, passive voice, vague terms. 'tone': collaborative framing. 'structure': sentence/paragraph organization.
sectionsNoSpecific sections to get review criteria for. Omit or use 'all' for complete review criteria.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds meaningful context beyond them. The local-only, no-upload behavior is explicitly disclosed, which is not implied by the annotations and addresses a real concern with review tools.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the return value, then the critical privacy note. Every sentence contributes meaningful information and there is no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, its key constraint (no report upload), and its reference items (rating sheets). For a read-only tool with complete schema annotations and no output schema, it is contextually complete.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter description coverage, so the description doesn't need to re-explain the parameters. It does link the 'sections' parameter to 'what to check in each section' and the 'focus' parameter to 'writing quality issues', but this adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get Lenny Zeltser's expert criteria'), the resource ('reviewing an existing IR report'), and the deliverable ('focused guidance for constructive critique'). It distinguishes itself from sibling domain-review tools by mentioning the IR-specific rating-sheet items (lens taxonomy, Information sheet).

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?

The description clearly implies when to use it: when the user wants expert IR review criteria without sharing the report itself. The statement 'This server never requests your report and instructs your AI to keep it local' clarifies a key usage constraint. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong.

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