Skip to main content
Glama

website-search

by com.zeltser

vuln_review_brief

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get Lenny Zeltser's expert criteria for reviewing an existing Vulnerability Investigation Brief. Surfaces per-theme review criteria (significance, scope, actions, gaps, sources), cross-cutting criteria, anti-patterns, and inline mcpHandoffs pointers when the requested focus triggers scoring or writing-mechanics themes (e.g., focus=tone surfaces rating_score_writing). 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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
focusNoFocus areas: completeness, clarity, tone, structure, significance, actions, sources, or all.
sectionsNoNarrow to specific brief sections; 'all' includes every section.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and idempotent. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: it surfaces cross-cutting criteria, anti-patterns, and inline mcpHandoffs pointers, and explains that the server never requests vulnerability notes and keeps the brief local for analysis. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is three sentences, with the purpose front-loaded. Each sentence contributes: purpose, contents/outputs, and privacy behavior. It is slightly dense, but no sentence is wasted.

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 no output schema, the description adequately indicates what is returned (per-theme criteria, cross-cutting criteria, anti-patterns, pointers). It is complete enough for a moderate-complexity tool, and the privacy note adds important context for this type of server.

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% for both parameters. The description adds extra meaning by giving a concrete example ('focus=tone surfaces rating_score_writing') and explaining the focus-driven behavior beyond the enum list. This goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 'Get Lenny Zeltser's expert criteria for reviewing an existing Vulnerability Investigation Brief' – a specific verb, resource, and expert source. It distinguishes from sibling tools like vuln_get_guidelines by naming Zeltser and the review focus, and by listing unique outputs (per-theme criteria, anti-patterns, mcpHandoffs pointers).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for reviewing existing Vulnerability Investigation Briefs and gives an example of focus-triggered handoffs, but it does not explicitly compare to alternatives like vuln_get_guidelines or other review tools. There's no when-not-to-use guidance, so it stays at 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