Skip to main content
Glama

AgentAegis

by io.github.astafford8488

control_gap_analysis

Read-onlyIdempotent

Turn unmet compliance controls into a prioritized remediation roadmap with effort estimates. Use after compliance_framework_check to answer 'what do we fix first'. Costs $2 per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
frameworkYes
failing_controlsYes
previous_scan_idNoOptional. A prior scan_id (from agent_history) to record as this call's parent — builds a traversable chained-workflow lineage retrievable via agent_scan_get. Must be one of your own scans; ignored otherwise. Does not change this tool's analysis.
budget_constraintNo
timeline_constraintNo

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds a cost warning ($2 per call) and clarifies that it produces a roadmap with effort estimates, which goes beyond the annotated safety profile.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences covering purpose, usage timing, and cost with no redundant wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, and the description does not specify return fields, pagination, or how constraints affect results. The tool has 5 parameters, most without schema descriptions, so the description leaves significant operational gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 20% (previous_scan_id only). The description offers no explanation of framework, failing_controls, budget_constraint, or timeline_constraint semantics, so the agent must rely on parameter names and enums alone.

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 states that the tool converts unmet compliance controls into a prioritized remediation roadmap with effort estimates, which is a specific verb+resource+output. It also references compliance_framework_check, distinguishing its purpose from that sibling tool.

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?

The description explicitly instructs to use this tool after compliance_framework_check and to answer 'what do we fix first', providing clear workflow guidance. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear.

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

All AgentAegis 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions that disambiguate overlaps (e.g., dns_security_check vs email_security_audit, ssl_tls_audit vs vet_endpoint). A few compliance lifecycle tools (compliance_framework_check, control_gap_analysis, audit_report_generate) could be confused, but descriptions clarify their sequencing.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case, but the verb/noun order varies (e.g., access_review vs agent_history vs cve_lookup). The pattern is readable and predictable enough, with minor inconsistency in whether the resource or action comes first.

Tool Count3/5

28 tools is on the heavy side, exceeding the 25-tool threshold for 'too many' in the calibration. However, the broad security/compliance domain justifies the count, and each tool covers a distinct aspect, though some consolidation (e.g., email_security_audit vs dns_security_check) could reduce redundancy.

Completeness5/5

The toolset covers the full security assessment lifecycle: identity/access review, vulnerability discovery and prioritization, compliance frameworks and gap analysis, evidence collection, policy generation, incident triage, and specialized scans (code, secrets, network, web app, MCP/skill supply chain). No obvious critical gaps for the stated purpose.

Resources