Skip to main content
Glama

Raziel

by io.github.tide-foundation

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

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations by explaining the two-phase execution (Phase 1 vendor-neutral, Phase 2 opt-in TideCloak companion), the output as a director-facing PDF, and the scoring methodology across Identity, Governance, and Access. These details prepare the agent for unexpected outputs and post-processing steps.

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?

Three sentences pack a dense but clear description: the first defines the action, definition, scoring, and output; the second explains the two-phase nuance; the third gives usage triggers. Every phrase earns its place without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description covers what, how, and when. It details the assessment focus, scoring, cores, deliverables, and usage scenarios. The only minor gap is how the 'existing app' is specified, but given the empty schema, it likely relies on conversational context, and the description still provides a strong overall picture.

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?

With zero parameters, the schema carries no input information, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior. The baseline for no parameters is 4; the description does not need to clarify parameter semantics, though a note about how the target app is identified (e.g., via context) would be a minor enhancement.

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 opens with 'Run a Blast Radius Assessment of an EXISTING app', clearly stating the action and resource. It further specifies the assessment's adversarial, vendor-neutral nature, scoring categories, delivery format, and phase structure, making it distinct from sibling tools like tide_security_analysis.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The final sentence explicitly states when to use this tool: '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.' This provides concrete triggers and implicitly excludes new-app scenarios.

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
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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes: reading specific document types (adapter, canon, gaps, playbook, etc.), performing assessments (blast_radius, security_analysis), branding, deployment decision, and listing content. However, some reading tools like tide_canon and tide_gaps could be confused, and the multiple scenario-related tools (scenario, bootstrap, manifest, roles) require careful reading of descriptions to differentiate.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use the 'tide_' prefix with snake_case, which provides a strong pattern. However, the naming mixes nouns (tide_canon, tide_gaps) with verb phrases (tide_choose_playbook, tide_list), and some tools like tide_dpop_asset are less intuitive. The pattern is mostly consistent but not strictly verb_noun.

Tool Count3/5

With 19 tools, the set is on the higher end for a single server. While many are necessary for the broad scope of reading various reference materials and performing analyses, the count feels slightly excessive. A few tools could be consolidated or removed to improve focus.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers reading all major reference documents, performing security assessments, branding, deployment decisions, and scenario matching. For the stated purpose of a 'Tide agent pack', it appears comprehensive. Minor gaps might include a tool for overall system health or status, but the core workflows are well-covered.

Resources