Register a TLPT/pentest exercise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| notes | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| status | No | ||
| test_type | No | ||
| budget_eur | No | ||
| start_date | No | ||
| exercise_id | No | ||
| ti_provider | No | ||
| exercise_name | Yes | ||
| target_end_date | No | ||
| red_team_provider | No | ||
| authority_notified | 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It merely states 'Register' without describing side effects, idempotency, required permissions, or what happens on duplicate registration. The description adds no behavioral information beyond what the tool name already implies, failing to disclose anything about the operation's mechanics or consequences.
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 extremely short (one sentence) but not appropriately sized for the tool's complexity. While it is front-loaded with the key verb and object, it omits context and parameter guidance that are necessary for understanding. This is under-specification, not conciseness, as the single sentence does not earn its place by providing sufficient information.
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 the tool's complexity (12 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, execution behavior, or how to use the provided parameters. The description is inadequate for an agent to identify the correct usage, so a score of 1 is warranted.
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 there are 12 parameters. The description does not mention any of them, such as 'exercise_name', 'status', or 'test_type'. It fails to add any meaning beyond the input schema, leaving the purpose of all parameters undocumented. The description must compensate for the low coverage but does not, so a score of 1 is appropriate.
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 states the action ('Register') and the resource ('a TLPT/pentest exercise'), which is specific and directly tied to the tool name. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'finding_register' by specifying the object is an exercise, not findings. However, it does not elaborate on the scope or nuance beyond that.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as whether this is the first step in an exercise workflow or how it relates to the listed sibling tools. The single sentence offers no usage context beyond the verb itself.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.