ISO 27001:2022 Annex A gap analysis. All 93 controls across 4 themes, new 2022 controls highlighted, certification process.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| controls | No | Optional: status of specific controls |
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 provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, auth requirements, or output format. It only states the coverage of the gap analysis (93 controls, 4 themes, new 2022 highlights, certification process) but does not explain what the tool does beyond that, nor what it returns. This is a significant gap given the absence of an output schema.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and includes specific details (93 controls, 4 themes, new 2022) without extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what the tool produces (e.g., a gap report, risk scores, certification readiness). It only hints at 'certification process' but does not describe return values or behavioral outcomes. Given the low complexity (1 optional param), this is still inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's output.
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?
The single optional parameter 'controls' already has a description in the schema (Optional: status of specific controls), providing full coverage. The tool description does not add any additional meaning or usage details for this parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 ISO 27001:2022 Annex A gap analysis, specifying the scope (all 93 controls across 4 themes) and noting new 2022 controls. This distinguishes it from sibling compliance tools like nis2_compliance and dora_ict_risk.
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. Whilesibling tools exist for other compliance frameworks, the description does not mention them or offer any usage context, leaving the agent to infer applicability solely from the tool name.
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.