website-search

vuln_get_guidelines

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Lenny Zeltser's expert vulnerability-brief writing guidelines. Topics include tone, words, structure, voice, articles, summary, fields (per-field guidance), handoffs (cross-server routing), and vuln-specific topics: significance (calibrated insecurity, no vendor passthrough — note this is the Vuln Brief's Significance row, distinct from CVSS/vendor severity scoring), actions (action-enabling What/Why/When/Who), gaps (calibrated uncertainty), sources (evidence synthesis), are_we_affected (scope discipline), and anti_patterns. Pair the 'fields' topic with field_id for single-field guidance. This server never requests your vulnerability notes and instructs your AI to keep them local—the brief template and guidelines flow to your AI for local analysis.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`topic`	No	Which topic to surface. Defaults to a 'summary' overview when omitted.
`field_id`	No	Only meaningful with topic='fields'. When supplied, returns guidance for the named field id. When omitted under topic='fields', returns a directory of available field ids.

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive annotations, the description discloses a privacy behavior (server never requests vulnerability notes and keeps data local) and clarifies that the 'significance' topic is distinct from CVSS/vendor severity scoring. These add meaningful context not captured by annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is moderately long but front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a topical list and key usage notes. Every sentence earns its place, though the density of topics makes it slightly less concise than ideal.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, topics, parameter relationships, and a notable privacy behavior. It does not explicitly describe the return format, but the guidance-focused nature is clear, making it adequately complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining the relationship between topic and field_id, and by elaborating on several topic meanings (e.g., significance, actions, gaps). This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves Lenny Zeltser's expert vulnerability-brief writing guidelines, listing specific topics and explicitly distinguishing from sibling get_guidelines tools by domain (vulnerability briefs). The verb 'Get' plus the resource and scope make the purpose unambiguous.

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?

It provides specific usage guidance, such as pairing the 'fields' topic with field_id for single-field guidance, and implicitly indicates this is the tool for vulnerability-brief guidelines. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative sibling tools or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of full explicit guidance.

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?