obligation_map
TLPT obligations DORA-TST-06 to TST-10.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
tlpt
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- First observed
TDQS
C2/5.0
Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral details. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only retrieval, a generation, or a mutation. It also doesn't mention any side effects, return format, or limitations, leaving the agent completely in the dark about what happens when the tool is invoked.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the key reference (TLPT obligations) and specifies a concrete range (DORA-TST-06 to TST-10). While sparse, it earns its place by providing specific resource identifiers. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, preventing a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no output schema and no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the tool returns or does. The fragment 'TLPT obligations DORA-TST-06 to TST-10' is not a complete explanation of functionality, return behavior, or relation to context. It is inadequate for an agent to understand the tool's role in the workflow.
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?
With 0 parameters, the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description doesn't contradict or add confusion about parameters. It appropriately focuses on the tool's object of interest (DORA-TST-06 to TST-10) rather than inventing parameter details.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'TLPT obligations DORA-TST-06 to TST-10' is a noun phrase that restates the tool name without a clear verb. It indicates a specific set of obligations but does not say what the tool does with them (retrieve, display, map, update). It lacks a clear action and does not distinguish from sibling tools like tlpt_readiness or mitre_map.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No usage guidance is provided. There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context for when it is appropriate, and no mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The description gives zero guidance on selection.
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
C2.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but potential confusion exists between 'auto_simulate' and 'generate_scenarios' (both involve scenario generation) and between 'health_check' and 'ping' (both test connectivity). Descriptions help mitigate but do not eliminate ambiguity.
Naming Consistency3/5
Tool names consistently use snake_case but mix verb-based (generate_scenarios, register_exercise) and noun-based (evidence_bundle, threat_profile) patterns. 'ping' is a single word, breaking the pattern. This inconsistency may confuse agents about whether a tool performs an action or represents a resource.
Tool Count5/5
17 tools cover the breadth of TLPT activities (scoping, simulation, findings, compliance) without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a distinct part of the workflow, making the count well-scoped for domain complexity.
Completeness4/5
The tool set covers major TLPT lifecycle phases: preparation (threat_profile), scenario generation (generate_scenarios, auto_simulate), execution mapping (attack_chain, mitre_map), findings (finding_register, remediation_plan), compliance (obligation_map, sync_to_ampel), and scheduling (test_calendar). Minor gaps like a dedicated reporting tool exist but can be worked around.