Assess security risk for a list of technologies. Returns known CVEs affecting each technology with severity breakdown. Input: comma-separated technology names only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| technologies | Yes | Comma-separated list of technology names (e.g., "Apache HTTP Server, OpenSSL, nginx"). Max 50 technologies. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses returns CVEs and severity but does not mention safety (read-only), authentication, or rate limits. Adequate but could be more explicit.
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, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose, then input format. Highly 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?
No output schema, but description mentions return of CVEs with severity breakdown. For a simple tool with one parameter, this is fairly complete, though could detail the return structure more.
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 covers parameter well (100% coverage). Description adds practical constraint of max 50 technologies, which is not in schema description. Adds value beyond schema.
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?
Clearly states verb 'assess' and resource 'technologies', and describes output 'known CVEs with severity breakdown'. Differentiates from siblings like lookup_cve.
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?
Specifies input format 'comma-separated technology names only' but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like lookup_cve or assess_dependency.
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, but 'lookup_cve' and 'get_weaponization_score' both focus on a single CVE, which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clarify their different outputs (full enrichment vs. numerical score).
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use 'get_', others 'list_', 'lookup_', 'assess_', 'scan_url', 'search_cves'. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range, covering a broad scope of security assessment and intelligence without being excessive.
Core workflows (scanning, vulnerability lookup, threat stats) are covered, but missing update/delete operations for scans and domain verification tool. Notable gaps exist but core functionality is present.
