kb_map
Map a framework external id (e.g. LLM01) to threat, controls, and Cloudflare primitives. Read-only.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| external_id | Yes | Framework reference id (e.g. 'LLM01', 'OWASP-ML01') |
protectwith-kb
TDQS
A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states 'Read-only' and the mapping function, but does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or output structure beyond the mapping itself.
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?
Two concise sentences with no fluff. Essential information is front-loaded: what it does and its read-only nature.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality and non-destructive trait. Lacks output format details, but overall adequate for a simple mapping tool.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description adds context on what the mapping produces but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema example. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states it maps a framework external ID to threat, controls, and Cloudflare primitives, specified as read-only. This verb+resource pair is distinct from sibling tool names like kb_checklist or kb_search.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives. The read-only hint is present but does not provide contextual usage boundaries or use-case examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency4/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
8 tools is an appropriate number for a read-only knowledge base, covering the essential retrieval, search, and mapping operations without being excessive.
Completeness5/5
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.