get_insightsThreat/control matrix metrics + framework coverage for a diagram, joined with its latest code-security scan when one exists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| diagram_id | Yes | Diagram id/uuid |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by noting the join with a code-security scan conditionally, which is valuable beyond 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 a single, well-crafted sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes key behavioral details without any wasted words. It is optimally concise.
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?
Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns: metrics, coverage, and optionally scan data. However, it could be more explicit about the structure or format of the metrics and coverage information.
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?
Schema coverage is 100%, with diagram_id described as 'Diagram id/uuid'. The description does not add any extra meaning or usage detail for this parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it scores baseline.
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 returns 'Threat/control matrix metrics + framework coverage for a diagram, joined with its latest code-security scan when one exists.' This specifies a clear verb (get), resource (insights), and scope (diagram, with optional scan data), distinguishing it from siblings like get_diagram_summary or get_framework_coverage.
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?
The description implies usage when needing a combined view of metrics, coverage, and optional scan data, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_framework_coverage or apply_remediation. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
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.
Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., apply vs. get remediation, scan vs. status). A few pairs like get_insights and get_diagram_summary overlap slightly in metrics but descriptions clarify differences. No major ambiguity.
Predominantly verb_noun pattern (apply_, get_, generate_). However, code_review_scan and compliance_scan are noun phrases without a leading verb, and compliance_status is noun_noun, introducing minor inconsistency.
15 tools is at the upper end of typical but still reasonable for a security platform covering scanning, remediation, threat modeling, billing, and reporting. Each tool serves a clear function; no obvious bloat.
Covers core workflows: code/cloud/compliance scanning, threat modeling, remediation (dry-run and apply), traceability, insights. Minor gaps like missing scan listing or account management, but these align with the platform's assessment focus.