Skip to main content
Glama

website-search

by com.zeltser

rating_score_writing

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Lenny Zeltser's scoring playbook so your AI can score a draft locally against a cybersecurity-writing rating sheet. THIS IS THE ONLY TOOL THAT PRODUCES NUMERIC SCORES — the writing-coach tools (get_security_writing_guidelines, ir_*, product_*) never score. Returns the rubric plus step-by-step instructions for applying it. 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
modeNoscore: per-item pass/fail + total + band classification (default). gaps: enumerate items the draft does NOT satisfy (best fit for Information sheets). feedback: per-item pass/fail + total + band, then constructive critique in the writing-coach voice.
sheetYesWhich sheet to apply. The 7 canonical IDs name a specific rubric. 'auto' picks among the three Information sheets (info-ir / info-assessment / info-threat) based on the document type the user describes; for lens sheets (structure / look / words / tone), pass the sheet ID directly.
detail_levelNominimal: scoring playbook only. standard: rubric + scoring playbook (default). comprehensive: rubric + scoring playbook + cross-references to writing guidelines + related articles.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds valuable context: it clarifies that the server never requests the draft and instructs the AI to keep it local, explaining data flow. It also states what it returns (rubric + instructions). No contradiction with 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 appropriately sized, with the primary purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence earns its place: differentiation, return content, and privacy. Despite the all-caps emphasis, it is concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers purpose, return content, and data flow, which is sufficient for a read-only tool with rich schema information. However, it does not elaborate on the output structure (e.g., format of numeric scores) or how modes differ, though these are partially explained in the schema. Minor gap given no 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter has detailed descriptions including enums. The tool description itself does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries 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 specifies a clear verb+resource: 'Get Lenny Zeltser's scoring playbook' for scoring drafts against a cybersecurity-writing rating sheet. It explicitly distinguishes itself from writing-coach tools by claiming it's the only one producing numeric scores, making its unique purpose 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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: when numeric scoring is needed. It names alternatives that do not score (`get_security_writing_guidelines`, `ir_*`, `product_*`), effectively telling the agent that these are not suitable for scoring. This goes beyond implied usage.

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