Raziel

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.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tide_blast_radius"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`part`	No	Which 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.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 29, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- addedInput schema / properties / part / maximum
```
Added value: +9007199254740991
```

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 20, 2026

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"
+}

AddedAug 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish this as read-only and non-destructive; the description adds useful behavioral context about the adversarial vendor-neutral map, scoring model, three security cores, and two-phase PDF delivery. It still omits details such as auth prerequisites and multi-part delivery handling.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers in scoring, phases, and usage triggers. It is dense and clause-heavy, but every part contributes relevant context for a complex assessment tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description explains the assessment type, scoring model, phases, and high-level PDF output, which covers a lot for a complex tool. However, it does not explain how the existing app is identified despite there being no app parameter, and multi-part delivery is only visible in the schema.

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 schema has only one optional parameter, 'part', and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents it. The description adds no additional meaning about that parameter, making the baseline score appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource: run a Blast Radius Assessment of an existing app, with a clear security-mapping purpose and PDF output. It does not explicitly distinguish this from related siblings such as tide_security_analysis or tide_gaps, so it stops short of the top score.

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 explicit usage triggers: assessing, red teaming, threat modeling, finding security gaps, or building a before/after case for an existing app. It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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

All Raziel tools Inspect

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.