Assess organizational readiness for a TLPT exercise.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scope_defined | No | ||
| budget_approved | No | ||
| legal_framework | No | ||
| authority_engaged | No | ||
| red_team_selected | No | ||
| white_team_formed | No | ||
| ti_provider_selected | No | ||
| crown_jewels_identified | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral transparency. It only says 'assess' without disclosing whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, how it determines readiness, or whether it triggers side effects. The description gives no insight into the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. While it does not waste words, it also does not provide enough information to be useful. It is more of a stub than a well-structured description, so it earns a middling score.
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 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain what constitutes 'readiness', how the inputs are aggregated, what the output is, or how the result should be interpreted. The tool appears to be a checklist-based assessment, but the description leaves out all meaningful context.
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 the description adds no meaning to any of the 8 boolean parameters. The parameter names (e.g., 'scope_defined', 'budget_approved') are self-explanatory but the description does not explain how they relate to the readiness assessment, their roles, or how they interact. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 tool's purpose: to assess organizational readiness for a TLPT exercise. The verb 'assess' and the resource 'organizational readiness for a TLPT exercise' are specific and distinguishable from sibling tool names. However, it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like 'health_check' or 'register_exercise', but the purpose is still clear.
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 whether it should be used before starting a TLPT, after certain prerequisites, or what to do with the results. There are no exclusions or alternative tool references, so the usage context is entirely implied.
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.