Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

OT Intel API

by io.github.No3men60
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

OT Device Security Profile

getDeviceExposure
Read-only

Security profile for an OT device: its NVD CVEs (newest first), its CISA ICS advisories (full CSAF history), and a model-written hardening profile (default-credential risk, OT protocols at risk, hardening steps; labelled by profile_provenance). Not an internet exposure scan. Price: $0.05 USDC per call via x402 on Base mainnet. An unpaid call returns an x402 PaymentRequired challenge; retry the identical call with the signed payload in _meta["x402/payment"].

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modelNoDevice model e.g. s7-1200, modicon-m340, controllogix, vision. With a model, NVD is searched for the model name
vendorYesVendor e.g. siemens, schneider, rockwell, honeywell, unitronics, ge, beckhoff

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / model / description
      Previous value: -"Device model e.g. s7-1200, modicon-m340, controllogix, vision"New value: +"Device model e.g. s7-1200, modicon-m340, controllogix, vision. With a model, NVD is searched for the model name"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "vendor",
-  "model"
-]New value: +[
+  "vendor"
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond readOnlyHint/openWorldHint: discloses result ordering (newest first), that hardening content is model-written and provenance-labelled, the $0.05 USDC x402 price on Base mainnet, and the exact retry path (_meta["x402/payment"]) after a PaymentRequired challenge. That is precisely the auth/payment behavior an agent needs and cannot get from 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?

Purpose, scope boundary, output inventory, and payment mechanics come in a tight four-sentence block with no filler. The output inventory sentence is dense (parenthetical list plus provenance note) but every clause carries information an agent uses.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description summarizes the three returned sections well enough to plan around; annotations cover the read-only/open-world profile; and the payment failure mode with its retry instruction is fully specified. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the model-name search behavior. The description itself adds no parameter-level semantics, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the burden.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource (security profile for an OT device) and enumerates exactly what is returned: NVD CVEs newest-first, full CISA ICS/CSAF history, and a model-written hardening profile with provenance labelling. The negative scoping line 'Not an internet exposure scan' plus the vendor/model inputs make it distinguishable from exposure siblings at a glance.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent what this is not ('Not an internet exposure scan'), which pre-empts the most likely confusion with getAssetExposure/getAiExposure/getRiskExposure. It also gives the exact paid-call procedure. It stops short of naming which sibling to use instead for internet exposure, and doesn't say when to add the optional model parameter versus vendor-only.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All OT Intel API toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources