Skip to main content
Glama

Raziel

by io.github.tide-foundation
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

tide_blast_radius

Read-only

Run a Blast Radius Assessment of an EXISTING app: an adversarial, vendor-neutral map of where authority is concentrated to a single point (whoever obtains that one thing obtains everything it governs), scored by blast radius (Total/Systemic/Contained/Limited) across three cores — Identity, Governance, Access — and delivered as a director-facing PDF. Phase 1 names no vendor; an opt-in Phase 2 companion explains how TideCloak shrinks each blast radius. Use this when the user wants to 'assess', 'red team', 'threat model', 'find the security gaps in', or make a before/after security case for an existing application.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
partNoWhich part to return when the document is delivered in several parts. Omit for part 1; the response says how many there are.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / part
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Which part to return when the document is delivered in several parts. Omit for part 1; the response says how many there are.",
+  "minimum": 1,
+  "type": "integer"
+}
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior — that Phase 1 is vendor-neutral and names no vendor, that Phase 2 is opt-in, and that the deliverable is a director-facing PDF. It omits auth/permission requirements and any indication of runtime or cost, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 content is front-loaded: the assessment and its scoring model lead, phasing follows, and the use-case triggers close. The opening sentence is heavily packed with parentheticals, but each clause carries distinct information and nothing is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the work of explaining the return — a scored, three-core, director-facing PDF with a phased companion. That is enough for an agent to set expectations, though it never says how the result is returned or how the 'part' paging interacts with the response.

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?

The single 'part' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the load. The description hints at multi-part delivery via the 'delivered as a director-facing PDF' framing but never mentions the parameter or its default behavior, so it adds no meaning beyond the structured field — 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 states a specific verb and artifact — run a Blast Radius Assessment on an EXISTING app, producing an adversarial vendor-neutral map scored across three named cores and delivered as a director-facing PDF. That level of specificity distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like tide_security_analysis, tide_gaps, and tide_doctor without the agent needing to open any other schema.

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?

It gives concrete invocation triggers ('assess', 'red team', 'threat model', 'find the security gaps in', making a before/after security case) and scopes the input to an existing application. It does not, however, name alternatives or state when a sibling such as tide_security_analysis or tide_gaps would be the better choice, so routing among similar tools is left to inference.

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

All Raziel toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources