list_security_guidanceList the static security guidance library — one entry per OWASP API-security issue with its remediation text, code examples and references. Pass guidanceId (the guidanceId of a finding) for a single entry. The library is global, not project-specific.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guidanceId | No | Id of a single guidance entry, e.g. 'api2-jwt-alg-none'. Returns it with code examples. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations indicate read-only, and the description adds that it is a static, global library, clarifying that no project context is needed. It also details the content returned without contradicting 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is succinct, with two sentences that cover purpose, parameter, and scope. It is well-structured and free of fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description includes all necessary information for an agent to decide whether to call this tool: what it returns, when to pass guidanceId, and that it's global. Nothing critical is missing.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema describes guidanceId with an example, and the tool description reinforces its purpose. Coverage is 100%, and the descriptions are clear, though it does not detail the exact format beyond the example.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: listing the static security guidance library with remediation text, code examples, and references. It distinguishes itself from project-specific tools by noting it is global, and from per-finding remediation tools by mentioning passing guidanceId.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It provides guidance on when to pass guidanceId for a single entry and notes that the library is global, not project-specific. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools like get_finding_remediation, so it is slightly less explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some pairs like get_header_policies vs get_resolved_headers or get_environment_verification vs get_monitoring_sync_status could be slightly confusing, but the descriptions clarify scope and purpose.
All tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (get_, list_, create_, update_, manage_, etc.). Even the few bare verbs like 'search' and 'set_context' are consistent with the naming scheme.
With 165 tools, the server is extremely heavy. This far exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25+, making it difficult for an agent to navigate and select the right tool efficiently.
The tool surface covers a very broad API lifecycle domain: specs, environments, test cases, monitors, mock servers, security, governance, documentation, and team management. Read and write operations are present across most areas, with no obvious missing core functionality.