Current cyber threat landscape overview per ENISA categories. Top 8 threats with sector relevance and mitigations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sector | No | energy|finance|healthcare|manufacturing|public_admin|general |
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 full burden. It indicates a read-only overview and specifies output content (top 8 threats, mitigations), but does not disclose data sources, update frequency, or any side effects. Lacking explicit safety language is acceptable for a simple overview, yet more detail would be welcome.
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?
Two succinct sentences front-load the core purpose and key content details. There is no filler or redundancy; every word contributes meaningfully to the description.
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 description provides essential context for a simple overview tool: the ENISA basis, top 8 threats, sector relevance, and mitigations. However, with no output schema, it could have clarified the result structure or behavior when 'sector' is omitted, leaving a small gap in completeness.
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 already documents the single 'sector' parameter with a complete list of valid values (energy|finance|healthcare|manufacturing|public_admin|general), giving 100% coverage. The description's mention of 'sector relevance' adds no new parameter detail, aligning with the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 provider of a 'current cyber threat landscape overview' organized by ENISA categories, listing the top 8 threats with sector relevance and mitigations. This specific scope and taxonomy distinguish it from sibling tools like cve_risk_score or phishing_indicators, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 the tool is used when a broad threat landscape context is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over siblings or mention exclusions. No alternative tools are referenced, so usage guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
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.