Skip to main content
Glama

Nist Standards

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Nist Control Search

nist_control_search
Read-onlyIdempotent

Keyword search across NIST 800-53 security/privacy controls and NIST 800-171 CUI requirements by title and requirement text. Use when the id is unknown — "NIST security control for least privilege", "NIST control about session lock", "NIST 800-53 encryption at rest", "NIST cybersecurity control multi-factor authentication", "access control / identification and authentication / system and communications protection". All query tokens must match (case-insensitive AND). Optional family filter (code like "AC", "IA", "SC" or a family name like "access control"). Returns matching {id, family, title, snippet}. Source: SP 800-53 Rev 5 + SP 800-171 Rev 3. Examples: {"query":"least privilege"}, {"query":"multi-factor authentication","family":"IA"}, {"query":"boundary protection"}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 10).
queryYesKeywords, e.g. "least privilege" or "encryption at rest". All tokens must match.
familyNoOptional family filter: code ("AC","IA","SC",…) or name ("access control").

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint true, and destructiveHint false. The description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond annotations: it notes 'All query tokens must match (case-insensitive AND).' and describes the return structure ({id, family, title, snippet}). No contradictions found.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single paragraph that front-loads the purpose and follows with usage rationale, query syntax, optional filters, return format, and examples. While concise, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points) but is not verbose.

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 3 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers matching behavior, optional filters, examples, and source information. An AI agent has sufficient context to invoke the tool correctly without missing critical details.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining token matching behavior for the 'query' parameter and clarifying the 'family' parameter can be a code or name. It also provides concrete examples that demonstrate parameter usage.

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 'Keyword search across NIST 800-53 security/privacy controls and NIST 800-171 CUI requirements by title and requirement text.' This specifies a concrete verb ('search'), resource (NIST controls/requirements), and scope (by title and requirement text). It distinguishes from sibling tools like nist_control and nist_control_family which serve different purposes.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the id is unknown' and provides example queries. This gives clear guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings that likely require an ID. While it doesn't explicitly exclude other scenarios, the context is sufficient for an AI agent.

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