NIS2 Directive (EU 2022/2555) compliance assessment. All 10 Art. 21 measures, entity classification, penalties, incident reporting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sector | No | ||
| mfa_deployed | No | ||
| access_control | No | ||
| employee_count | No | ||
| risk_management | No | ||
| incident_handling | No | ||
| business_continuity | No | ||
| cryptography_policy | No | ||
| annual_turnover_meur | No | ||
| supply_chain_security | No | ||
| cyber_hygiene_training | No | ||
| vulnerability_management | No | ||
| incident_reporting_process | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only lists content areas (measures, classification, penalties, incident reporting) but does not explain what the tool actually does with the inputs—whether it computes a compliance score, generates a report, or performs a checklist. It also fails to describe the output format, prerequisites, or any side effects.
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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's scope. It avoids redundancy and gets straight to the point. However, given the tool's complexity, the extreme brevity sacrifices necessary detail, though that issue is captured in other dimensions.
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?
This is a complex tool with 13 parameters and no output schema or annotations. The one-sentence description covers only high-level scope and omits critical operational details: what the inputs mean, what the response contains, how the assessment is structured, and any limitations. It is inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke the tool.
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 schema has 13 parameters with 0% description coverage, yet the description does not reference any parameter. It gives no hints about how fields like sector, mfa_deployed, or annual_turnover_meur influence the assessment. With no parameter descriptions in the schema and none in the tool description, the agent is left completely uninformed about parameter usage.
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 states the tool's purpose: assessing compliance with the NIS2 Directive (EU 2022/2555). It enumerates specific coverage areas (all 10 Art. 21 measures, entity classification, penalties, incident reporting), distinguishing it from sibling tools like iso27001_gap (different standard) and dora_ict_risk (different regulation).
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?
The description implies use for NIS2 compliance assessments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, the sibling nis2_incident_report likely handles incident reporting specifically, yet the description includes incident reporting without clarifying whether to prefer the sibling for that function. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.
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.