Skip to main content
Glama

website-search

by com.zeltser

rating_get_sheet

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Lenny Zeltser's cybersecurity-writing rating sheet(s) so your AI can apply the rubric. Returns the structured rubric (groups, items, scoring bands) WITHOUT computing a score. Use rating_score_writing if you also want a numeric score, gap analysis, or rubric-anchored feedback. This server never requests your draft and instructs your AI to keep it local—rating sheets and scoring instructions flow to your AI.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sheetNoWhich sheet to return. 'structure' / 'look' / 'words' / 'tone' apply to any document. 'info-ir' / 'info-assessment' / 'info-threat' are document-type-specific. 'all' returns the full bundle (default).

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, but the description goes further by disclosing that the server never requests the user's draft and instructs the AI to keep content local. It also clarifies the tool returns the structured rubric and not computed scores, adding context beyond the annotations.

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, each with a distinct purpose: state what the tool does, contrast with the scoring sibling, and disclose privacy behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (structured rubric with groups, items, scoring bands), what is not computed (score), and how to get scoring if needed. It also covers the privacy behavior, making it adequate without an output schema.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (sheet) with a clear description of each enum value, so the schema itself does the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so a 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 opens with a clear, specific verb (Get), identifies the resource (Lenny Zeltser's cybersecurity-writing rating sheet), and explains its purpose (apply the rubric). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool rating_score_writing by stating it does NOT compute a score, making its scope unmistakable.

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 guidance: use this tool when you need the rubric without scoring, and directs users to rating_score_writing when they also want a numeric score, gap analysis, or rubric-anchored feedback. This directly addresses when to use this tool versus the most relevant sibling.

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