Skip to main content
Glama

Raziel

by io.github.tide-foundation

tide_security_analysis

Read-only

Analyze an EXISTING (possibly non-Tide) system for security gaps and map them to Tide capabilities. Returns the Security Analyst role instructions, the security gap mapping table (SG-01…SG-18), and the runtime-probe procedures. Use this when the user asks 'do a security analysis', 'where is my auth weak', or 'what would Tide change about my security'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_runtime_probesNoInclude the runtime-confirmation probe procedures (canon/security-runtime-probes.md). Only relevant when the operator is authorized to probe a live target. Defaults to true.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds behavioral detail by listing the exact outputs (Security Analyst role instructions, gap mapping table, runtime-probe procedures), which informs the agent of the tool's effect and return structure.

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 extremely concise: two sentences pack the tool's purpose, output components, and usage triggers. No extraneous words, and information is front-loaded.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers its utility, expected inputs, and return values. It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when and how to use it.

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 only parameter (include_runtime_probes) has a detailed schema description covering its meaning, relevance, and default. The tool's description merely echoes this without adding significant new semantics. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it further.

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's purpose: analyze an existing system for security gaps and map them to Tide capabilities. It uses specific verbs ('Analyze', 'map') and identifies the resource (system security), and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit usage examples like 'do a security analysis' or 'where is my auth weak', giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not specify when not to use it or mention alternative sibling tools for similar queries.

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