Skip to main content
Glama

AgentAegis

by io.github.astafford8488

vuln_prioritize

Read-onlyIdempotent

Rank vulnerabilities you already have by exploitability and business impact, and group them into remediation actions. Analyzes findings you supply; it discovers nothing on its own. Costs $1 per call.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
findingsYes
business_contextNo
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.

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: it only analyzes supplied findings, never performs discovery, and costs $1 per call. This goes beyond the annotations and provides practical operational details.

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 three sentences, each adding value: purpose, scope limitation, and cost. No fluff, and the main purpose is front-loaded.

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

Completeness3/5

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

With no output schema and nested input parameters, the description is somewhat sparse. It mentions grouping into remediation actions but does not explain return format, nor does it cover business_context or previous_scan_id. The core behavior is described, but the full context needed for a complex call is incomplete.

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 33% (only previous_scan_id is described). The description loosely references 'findings' and 'business impact' but does not explain the required structure of the findings array or business_context object, nor does it mention previous_scan_id. It fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 uses specific verbs 'Rank' and 'group' to describe the tool's function on vulnerabilities the user already has. It explicitly differentiates from sibling tools like vuln_scan_network by stating 'it discovers nothing on its own', making the purpose distinct.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (after vulnerabilities are known) and provides a when-not by stating it discovers nothing on its own. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to guide selection.

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