password_policy
Generate password policy per NIST SP 800-63B (2024) and BSI recommendations. Modern best practices — no forced rotation.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
cybershield
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait ('no forced rotation') and selects specific standards, but it does not describe the output format or any side effects. Since the tool has no parameters, the main missing transparency is what the generated policy looks like. The description adds value beyond the name but lacks sufficient detail for full 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and ending with a distinctive policy stance. Every clause adds value—standards, best practices, and a concrete policy decision. There is zero padding or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main functional context: what it generates and the guiding standards. However, it does not specify the return value format (e.g., plain text, JSON), which could be important for an agent to invoke or parse correctly. Still, the tool is simple, and the description is a solid starting point.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema is empty (0 parameters), so by the rubric baseline, a score of 4 is appropriate. There are no parameter meanings to explain, and the description does not attempt to introduce any. The tool's behavior is entirely self-contained.
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 function: generating a password policy based on authoritative sources (NIST SP 800-63B and BSI). This is a specific verb+resource pairing that immediately distinguishes it from sibling security tools like cve_risk_score or phishing_indicators, which serve different purposes.
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?
While no explicit 'when to use' or 'alternatives' are stated, the purpose is self-evident and no sibling tool overlaps with password policy generation. The 'Modern best practices' and standards reference imply use cases where compliance with NIST/BSI is needed. Slight deduction for not stating exclusions or prerequisites, but context makes it clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
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.
Naming Consistency4/5
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.
Tool Count5/5
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.
Completeness4/5
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.