Attack surface assessment checklist. Web apps, remote access, cloud, IoT, email. Prioritized security checks.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iot_devices | No | ||
| cloud_services | No | ||
| employee_count | No | ||
| web_applications | No | ||
| remote_access_vpn | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It mentions 'checklist' and 'prioritized security checks', which suggests a non-destructive assessment, but it does not disclose whether the tool performs live scans, returns a report, or is a static guide. No side effects or return behavior are described.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, with no filler, and front-loads the purpose. It is split into three short sentences, which is slightly fragmented but clear and efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. An agent cannot determine what the tool returns, how to interpret the checklist, or how it relates to sibling security tools, making it hard to invoke correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description lists categories (web apps, remote access, cloud, IoT, email) that map to booleans but does not explain parameter names or how they control the assessment. 'employee_count' is not mentioned in the description, leaving its meaning and type unexplained.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as an attack surface assessment checklist and enumerates coverage areas (web apps, remote access, cloud, IoT, email). It distinguishes from siblings by its broad, cross-cutting scope, but lacks a specific verb describing what it actually does (e.g., 'generates', 'returns').
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like cve_risk_score or nis2_compliance. The phrase 'Prioritized security checks' implies a general purpose but does not specify the appropriate context or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool focuses on a distinct security domain: attack surface, CVE scoring, compliance frameworks (DORA, ISO, NIS2), incident response, phishing, risk matrix, metrics, and threat landscape. There is no functional overlap that would confuse an agent.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case convention and are descriptive noun phrases. The pattern is predictable, though it does not use a uniform verb_noun structure, which is a minor stylistic deviation.
With 12 tools, the server is well-scoped for a cybersecurity compliance and risk platform. Each tool adds meaningful functionality without redundancy, keeping the set manageable and purposeful.
The toolset covers major compliance assessments (DORA, ISO 27001, NIS2), incident response, risk analysis, and threat intelligence. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated business continuity or broader policy generation tool, but the core security lifecycle is well represented.