Analyze email/URL for phishing indicators. Scores sender, urgency, attachments, URL patterns. Returns verdict and recommended actions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| subject | No | ||
| sender_email | No | ||
| suspicious_url | No | ||
| creates_urgency | No | ||
| asks_for_credentials | No | ||
| has_unexpected_attachment | 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 the burden of disclosing behavior. It states the tool scores sender, urgency, attachments, and URL patterns, and that it returns a verdict and recommended actions. However, it does not explain how scores are computed, whether inputs are required, or any limitations, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated tool.
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 two sentences and 18 words, front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every phrase contributes value—domain, analysis dimensions, and output—with no filler or redundancy.
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 simple analysis tool with six optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the tool's purpose, the key inputs, and the return type (verdict and recommended actions). It could mention edge cases or prerequisite knowledge, but the description is sufficient for a basic phishing-analysis task.
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 provides no descriptions for the six parameters (0% coverage). The description partially compensates by naming 'sender, urgency, attachments, URL patterns,' which maps to sender_email, creates_urgency, has_unexpected_attachment, and suspicious_url, but it omits subject and asks_for_credentials entirely, leaving those parameters' semantics 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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze email/URL for phishing indicators.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling risk/compliance tools by focusing on phishing-specific analysis of sender, urgency, attachments, and URL patterns.
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 when phishing suspicion exists, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like incident_playbook or threat_landscape. There are no explicit exclusions or alternative guidance, but the domain-specific wording gives enough context for a basic use case.
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.