Map security controls to compliance requirements they satisfy (e.g. SOC 2, ISO 27001, NIST). Optionally filter by framework. Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Natural-language query to find relevant controls (used when control_ids is not provided) | |
| framework | No | Filter compliance results to a specific framework (e.g. 'SOC 2', 'ISO 27001', 'NIST') | |
| control_ids | No | Explicit list of control IDs to map |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It declares 'Read-only' and notes optional filtering, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or any side effects. Minimal behavioral context beyond the read-only nature.
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?
Two sentences, clearly front-loaded with the main action and examples. No unnecessary words, efficient and scannable.
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?
No output schema is provided, and the description does not explain the structure of the results (e.g., list of mappings, JSON). For a tool with 3 parameters, this leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect, making it less complete.
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?
All three parameters are described in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds minimal value beyond restating the purpose. The baseline of 3 is appropriate as the description does not enhance understanding of the parameters.
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 states a specific action: mapping security controls to compliance requirements, with examples of frameworks (SOC 2, ISO 27001, NIST). It distinguishes from sibling tools like kb_map by specifying 'compliance requirements' and 'Read-only', making the purpose clear and unique.
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 mentions optional filtering by framework, which guides usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to alternatives such as kb_map or kb_search, so it lacks full exclusion guidance.
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.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: building checklists, classifying threats, mapping compliance, fetching by ID, listing entities, mapping framework IDs, traversing relationships, and semantic search. There is no overlap or ambiguity.
All tools use the 'kb_' prefix followed by a descriptive word, but the pattern varies: some are verbs (classify, get, list, search), one is a noun (checklist), and one is an adjective (related). Mostly consistent but with minor deviations.
8 tools is an appropriate number for a read-only knowledge base, covering the essential retrieval, search, and mapping operations without being excessive.
The tool set covers all necessary read operations for a security knowledge base: search, classification, compliance mapping, entity retrieval, listing, relationship traversal, and checklist generation. No obvious gaps given the read-only scope.