Skip to main content
Glama

Nist Standards

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Nist Control

nist_control
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up the full text of one NIST 800-53 security control or NIST 800-171 CUI security requirement by id — the control statement (requirement prose), discussion/guidance, and related controls. Use for "what does NIST control AC-2 require", "NIST 800-53 AC-2 access control", "FedRAMP control SC-7 boundary protection", "NIST authenticator management IA-5", "NIST CUI control 800-171 3.1.1". Forgiving id: accepts "AC-2", "ac-2", "AC-02", control enhancements "AC-2(1)" or "AC-2.1", and CUI ids "3.1.1" / "3.01.01". Source: SP 800-53 Rev 5 and SP 800-171 Rev 3 (official NIST OSCAL, public domain). Examples: {"id":"AC-2"}, {"id":"SC-7"}, {"id":"IA-5"}, {"id":"AC-2(1)"}, {"id":"3.1.1"}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesControl id, e.g. "AC-2", "ac-2", "AC-02", "SC-7", "IA-5", enhancement "AC-2(1)"/"AC-2.1", or CUI requirement "3.1.1".

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds value by disclosing the return content (full text, discussion, guidance, related controls), source (official NIST OSCAL, public domain), and forgiving ID parsing. No contradiction with annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose, followed by concise examples and format details. Every sentence is useful: it covers what the tool does, what it returns, acceptable IDs, and source, with no wasted words.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given one parameter, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description fully explains input flexibility and expected outputs. It mentions related controls and source, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema covers 100% of parameters with a description, but the tool description adds significant detail: accepted ID formats (e.g., AC-2, ac-2, AC-02, AC-2(1), 3.1.1), explicit examples, and behavior for enhancements and CUI IDs, which goes beyond the basic schema.

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 the tool looks up full text of NIST 800-53 or 800-171 controls by ID, including control statement, discussion, and related controls. It provides many specific examples, distinguishing it from sibling tools like nist_control_family and nist_control_search by focusing on individual control lookup.

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?

Examples like "what does NIST control AC-2 require" and forgiving ID formats implicitly guide usage. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use or compare to alternatives, the context signals and sibling names suggest distinct use cases.

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

All Nist Standards 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but several clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges both surface arbitrage opportunities, and validate_claim overlaps with ask_pipeworx_grounded. Descriptions mitigate some confusion, but selection errors are still likely.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are overwhelmingly lowercase snake_case and descriptive, such as nist_control_family, polymarket_fill_risk, and list_subscriptions. Minor deviations exist with single-word memory verbs like remember/recall/forget and the ask_pipeworx_* variants, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the comfortable range and includes many tools unrelated to the server's NIST Standards name, such as Polymarket betting, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility checks, and llms.txt generation. The set feels like a broad general-purpose data platform rather than a scoped NIST reference server.

Completeness3/5

For the NIST domain, the three control tools provide id lookup, family listing, and keyword search, but there is no catalog overview or family enumeration, and no comparison, revision, or export capability. The other 31 tools do not fill those gaps, so the NIST surface is functional but not fully complete for compliance workflows.

Resources