ClevSec EU compliance tools

Cyber risk action plan (ClevSec Pro)

cyber_risk_action_plan

Read-onlyIdempotent

Use after cyber_risk_score when the user wants to reduce their risk. Returns every gap with a recommended action, a priority, NIST CSF 2.0 and NIS2 references and a 30/60/90-day roadmap (MFA, encryption, patching, incident response and backups first). Requires ClevSec Pro.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "answers": "<answers>"
    },
    "name": "cyber_risk_action_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`answers`	Yes	Question id to answer, e.g. {"q1": "yes", "q4": "partial"}. Unanswered questions score zero.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedOct 20, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare this a safe, read-only, idempotent, closed-world operation, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description does add useful context beyond them: the ClevSec Pro entitlement requirement and the fact that findings are ordered by priority with MFA/encryption/patching/IR/backups first. It says nothing about failure behavior when the Pro plan is absent or when no prior score exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two dense sentences: the trigger/sequencing first, then the output contents, then the entitlement constraint. No filler, nothing repeated.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values and does so well: gaps, actions, priority, framework references, and a phased roadmap. What is missing is edge-case behavior — what an agent should do if ClevSec Pro is unavailable or if cyber_risk_score has not yet been run.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and the nested 'answers' object is fully documented in the schema, including the note that unanswered questions score zero. The description adds nothing about the answers parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Returns every gap with a recommended action, a priority...') plus the exact payload: NIST CSF 2.0/NIS2 references and a 30/60/90-day roadmap. It also positions itself relative to the sibling cyber_risk_score, so an agent can separate the two without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Use after cyber_risk_score when the user wants to reduce their risk' gives a clear trigger and sequencing constraint, and 'Requires ClevSec Pro' flags a prerequisite. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the many other remediation-plan siblings (nis2_remediation_plan, dora_remediation_plan, gdpr_remediation_plan), leaving overlap unresolved.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All ClevSec EU compliance tools tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?