NIS2 incident notification template. 24h early warning, 72h notification, 1-month final report templates.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| severity | No | ||
| incident_type | No | ||
| affected_services | No | ||
| cross_border_impact | No | ||
| affected_users_estimate | 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 carries full burden. It states only that templates are available, without disclosing output format, whether it returns text or a document, how parameters influence results, or any side effects. This is minimal behavioral disclosure.
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, front-loaded with the core concept and efficient in listing the three template types. It contains no fluff, though it is somewhat under-specified, which is more a completeness concern than a conciseness issue.
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?
Given 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details about output format, parameter usage, how the templates are produced, and intended use scenarios. It provides only a high-level purpose, leaving significant gaps for an agent 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 mentions none of the five input parameters (severity, incident_type, affected_services, cross_border_impact, affected_users_estimate). The agent cannot infer how these parameters are used or how to populate the template, adding no value beyond the bare parameter names.
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 a NIS2 incident notification template, specifying three template types (24h early warning, 72h notification, 1-month final report). It differentiates from sibling tools like incident_playbook and nis2_compliance by focusing on notification templates, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'generate' or 'provide'.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention incident_playbook, nis2_compliance, or other options, nor does it state prerequisites or scenarios where these templates are appropriate.
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.